bd Ss be Sg or 


cera) “ 
Eien ete bab 7 
niet gifts 
rath ieee 


eieaeat 
Beas sect 


eirecee saad 
a 
Pout 


y: 


iieser : ty 


KS 
a 
rete 


x 


pa ghiecssts 


aa 
if 


poze 


i 
nad 


pipes 
ee 
3 


i 


i‘ 


ey 


eeaes 


=) 
act 


area! 


See eagle ren nat yet 
Sioa a 


eatstes 


CERARY OF PRINCES 


r. . ak 
“Eo. oGica, sews 


BT 111 .T53 
Theophilus. 
Biblical Trinity 


vinih The Stes | 
ha Nae ¥ 
<f in 7 re 


Dp gir h. 
Mi] 


war Wings ly | Wah 
he ee ale Toe! Poa 
‘ py 1 te : 
Oe a, rk eh 1 
AP 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/biblicaltrinityOOtheo 


é 
£ 


of ’ rofl 
BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


BY THEOPHILUS. 


HARTFORD, CONN. : 
EDWIN HUNT, 6 ASYLUM STREET. 


eVeocoovceece 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1850, by 
EDWIN HUNT, 


in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States. for the 
District of Connecticut. 


TO 
ALL CHRISTIANS 
WHO REVERE 
DIVINE TRUTH 
MORE THAN THE DOGMAS OF SCHOOLS ; 
WHO, RECEIVING THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 
AS A SUFFICIENT RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, 
BOW TO THE AUTHORITY OF NO OTHER CREED ; 
AND WHO, THINKING FOR THEMSELVES, 
ALLOW ALL OTHERS TO ENJOY THAT SOUND BIRTH-RIGHT, 
UNMOLESTED BY BIGOTRY, SUPERSTITION, 
ANTIQUATED. ERROR OR ARROGANT POWER ; 
THIS HUMBLE VOLUME 
Is 
FRATERNALLY AND CONFIDINGLY 
INSCRIBED, 
BY ONE WHO IS CONSCIOUS 
OF NO HIGHER AMBITION OR AIM 
THAN TO BE OF THEIR NUMBER, AND WITH THEM 
GLORIFY GOD; 
BEING SANCTIFIED BY HIS SPIRIT THROUGH THE TRUTH, 


AND REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF 


HIS SON. 


May, 1850. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 
InrrRopucToRY LETTER 3 ; i I—XXXVil. 


CHAPTER I. 


Tue Gopurap as Reveatep To Man: p. 17.—1. As the Father; 20. 
—2. As the Son, or the manifestation of God in the flesh; 23. 
Creation with reference to redemption; Examination of Col. 1: 
16,17. Eph. 3: 9—11, Heb. 1: 2; 24. On the use of Preposi- 
tions; 28. God—variously designated—dwelt in the Messiah ; 35. 
Christ a true and proper man; 36. Christ the Son of God; 37.— 
3. As the Holy Spirit; 39. His agency not confined to Sanctifi- 
cation; 40. Views of Prof. Knapp; 42. Passages in Old Testa- 
ment adduced ; 43. Summary statement of the Spirit’s Agency ; 46. 
Holy Spirit raised Christ from the dead; 48. Language of Evarts ; 
51. Resurrection of the Dead ascribed to the Spirit ; 52. 


OHA PE ER, FF 


Tue Common Turory oF THE TRINITY CONSIDERED: Two forms of 
this theory—Monotheistic and Tritheistic ; 57. In the Trinity of 
the Scriptures, each Person has “distinctive peculiarities ;” 58. 
A Biblical Trinity not a theory ; 59. Meaning of Person in this 


6 CONTENTS. 


discussion ; 60. * Prof, Stuart’s argument for distinctions; 61. A 
corresponding property not necessary; 64. Eternal Generation 
founded on the principle of correspondence ; 65. Eternal Proces- 
sion results from the same principle of interpretation; 75. Bishop 
Pearson’s view; 76. Dr. Miller’s; 80. Distinetions in the na- 
ture of God unphilosophical and unscriptural; 81. _ Summary 
statement; 82. Views of Prof. Pond; 85. How it is, that “ so 
the Church has always understood the subject—” intolerance ; 87. 
Intolerance in England—Acts of Elizabeth, William III. and 
George I.; 89, seq. Antiquity of the Common Theory; 92. In- 
fluence of society ;. illustrations—case of Galileo ; 94. Prevalence 
of witchcraft; 96. Difference between a Trinitarian and a 
Unitarian; 99. Knapp and Neander on the Common Theory ; 
100; Three kinds of orthodoxy ; 101. Scholasticism a deceiver ; 
102. The mode of the Divine existence not revealed; 103. A 
bar to the free investigation and reception of truth; 106. Differ- 
ence between the Monotheistic Theory and a Biblical Trinity ; 
107. Tritheistic form of the Common Theory—views of various 
authors; 111, seq. Report of a Sermon on the Trinity; 114. 
Dr. L. Beecher’s Sermon in Boston; 115. Dr. E. Beecher’s 
views in Biblical Repository; 119. Main topics to be 
discussed; First, distinct Persons in the Divine nature, 124. 
Second topic, union of three in one substratum; 139. Third 
topic, society in God; 146. Use of the pronouns, £ Thou, He, 
as applied to God; 151. Nothing gained by this theory; 169. 
Its origin and object; 170. Something lost by it; 177. Sufi- 
ciency of the Word of God to refute error and establish the truth ; 
178. 


CHAPTER III 


AppiTionaL PassaGes oF SCRIPTURE Examinep: Truth affected by 
the medium. through which it is seen; 184. Examination of 
John 1: 1—5. Prefatory remarks; 185. The point to be 


CONTENTS. 2 7 


considered; 188. Object of the passage suggested; 190. Re- 
marks of Prof. Stuart; 194. “Our exegetical guide 195. 


Meaning of the preposition pds in this passage ; 196. The Logos ~~ 


spoken of in two respects ;. 199. The moral condition of man; 
201. The Logos as used in the Targums; 203. The nucleus of 
the whole subject ; 205. Other modes of designating God; 207. 
Meaning of, “ the Logos was with God ;” 208. Prepositions 
used with latitude ; 210. Literal interpretation of the language ; 
213. The Scriptures not contradictory ; 214. Three unwarrant- 
able assumptions; 216. Concluding remarks on John 1: 1—5; 
990, Examination of John 3: 13; 17: 5, 24; Phil. 2: 5—8; 
John 5: 17, 18; 16: 138; 1 John 5: 7, 8; 221, seq. Covenant 
of Redemption ; 246. ‘Two Principles of Interpretation; 251, 


CHAPTER IV. 


MisceLLanzous: Opposite views of the Common Theory ; 253. Apos- 
tles) Creed; 255. Nicene Creed ; 296. Athanasian Creed ; 257. 
Trinity as held in England in 1600—Otes on Jude; 260. New 
England views of the doctrine in 1700—Willard ; 265. Specula- 
tion and practical views of the Trinity ; 268. No discoveries in 
theology ; 272. Views of Baxter; 274. Of Watts; 279. His 
Address to the Deity ; 278. Dr. Gibbons on False Reports con- 
cerning Watts; 287. Dr. Johnson’s opinion of him ; 288. At- 
tempt to suppress some of his Writings ; 289. Remarks of a 
writer in the New Englander; 290. Attachment to the Common 
Theory ; 292. llustrations ; 294. Trinity revealed in Old Testa- 

- ment; 297. Claimed to be held by most heathen nations; 298. Paul 
ignorant of any such fact, but notices the prevalent philosophy 
respecting man; 299. Views of early Christian fathers; 305. 
Why called a Biblical Trinity ; 307. On using the language of 
the Common Theory ; 309. On Mystery; 311. On Creeds; 316. 
On the treatment of those holding different views of Revealed 
Truth; 320. 


8 CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER'\V. 


Conoiusion: Difference between the Trinity of the Scriptures and the 
Common Theory ; 327. Reasons why no great and sudden change 
of views is to be expected; 331. 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR, 


Dear Srp, 

You ask me, for reasons best known to yourself, my 
opinion of your book, entitled, ‘‘ A Brsuican Triniry.”? 
If I had the vanity to imagine that my opinion would alter 
yours, I should either give it with less freedom, or not give 
it at all. The subject of your volume is one with which, 
in its many learned aspects, you are much more familiar 
than myself; and doubtless your own mind is made up with 
deliberation, and, I might add, unchangeably, if the saying 
is true, that ‘‘ there is no hope of a man who has written a 
book.”? 

You ask, moreover, for my opinion: without personal 
favor or affection. This caveat is quite superfluous ; for I 
could not persuade myself to praise or blame any book for 
its author’s sake, whatever might be its subject ; but espe- 
cially a work which treats of so great and glorious a theme 
as that of the Divine nature in any of its manifestations. to 
our race. I need not say to you, sir, that as there is no 
subject so vast and sublime, so there is none in respect to 
which we have so great and so constant an interest to know 
the truth, or so solemn a duty to express our real convic- 
tions whenever our views are not unreasonably asked for by 
others—a fact which in the present case I am at liberty to 
infer. ; 


\ 


il A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


As, therefore, you expect me to deal frankly with you, 
and as I mean to justify the expectation, I say at once, that 
I have not yet sufficiently examined and considered the 
Trinity of the Scriptures as set forth in your book, to ex- 
press either my belief or disbelief as to its entire correctness, 
or as to the entire consistency of the statement of it. 
Nevertheless, I am free to say, that the theories on which 
you animadvert are, in my opinion, liable at least to all the 
objections, both from reason and Seripture, which you urge 
against them. It is often-much easier to expose the errors 
of a false system, than to build up simple truth on its ruins. 
Many absurd theories of physical, mental and moral science 
have been demolished by men who have erected no substan- 
tial fabric in their stead. They did a good work, and per- 
formed all that could be reasonably required of them ; for it 
is a false and injurious notion, that error should not be 
exposed till truth is ready to supply its place. The world 
never can advance except as the obstructions to its progress 
are taken out of the way. And this principle is quite as true 
in the science of theology as in any other science whatever. 
Perhaps in none is it so lamentably true ; for certainly in 
none have more stupendous piles of error been accumulated 
for human reverence. Their vastness and antiquity have 
overawed inquiry, and, in an age comparatively free, culti- 
vated superstition has walked hand in hand with severely dis- 
ciplined reason. The world is, therefore, often quite as much 
indebted to resolute and true-hearted men, who, in spite of 
the frowns of theological potentates and ecclesiastical combi- 
nations, have explored and exposed time-hallowed absurdi- 
ties, as to their less courageous successors, who, in the midst 
of little opposition and much encouragement, have made 
progress to remoter truths. — 

I presume you do not expect me, even’if I think well of 
your book in the main, to coincide with all the views con- 
tained in it, for that would be much, very much, more than 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. iil | 


happens to me in respect to any book of theology or ethies 
yet written by man. To my mind there is no more certain 
evidence of the imperfection of human knowledge and wis-— 
dom, than what is furnished by the writings of men who are 
regarded, and justly so, as among the wisest of their race. 
Even the shortest and.most approved formularies of Chris- 
tian doctrine, composed, revised, and amended by the col- 
lective wisdom of great and good men, as permanent stand- 
ards and tests of essential faith, have been proper objects of 
distrust and dissent by other collections of men equally good 
and great, who, in their turn, have had no better success in 
attempting a like service for God and man. And if so, 
what hope can there be of infallibility for a whole volume, 
either yours or another’s, devoted to a subject which has been 
in controversy among good men—most of them, like our- 
selves, not so good as they should have been—during nearly 
the whole of the time since the apostolic age,—a subject which 
has exercised the acutest, most learned, and best disciplined 
minds,—a subject, too, which has been most -controverted 
in the most paloiiancd Christian nations, and where reli- 
gious freedom has been most enjoyed, or rather, least 
trampled on. 

But, notwithstanding such obstacles to the full endorse- 
ment of any multifarious volume of polemic or didactic 
theology, even the very best, and while I neither ask nor 
expect you to certify or assent to all the sentiments of this 
letter, I am constrained to say that I have examined your 
book with both pleasure and profit, and am persuaded that the 
same effects will be gratefully felt by many others whose 
minds are now drawn, or must soon be drawn, to the subject 
it treats of. 

To begin with the beginning, I like the title of your -vol- 
ume—A Brsricat Trinity. It has the merit of deserip- 
tive brevity, making known, in three words, exactly the 
subject which the book itself discusses and illustrates. But 


& 


iV A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


leaving the name for the thing, I may safely predict that its 
simplicity, clear statement, directness, general candor, good 
temper, and evident good purpose will commend them- 
selves, and so far ingratiate the substance of the work as to 
increase its chances of being read with candor and profit. 

Your book has one characteristic which gives it a value, 
and which will, I trust, give it an attraction to many minds. 
Tam acquainted with no single volume, so clear, comprehen- 
sive, untechnical, and accessible, that can supply its place in 
respect to the variety and amount of instruction it furnishes 
on the general subject to which it is devoted. While, ex- 
cept to adepts in the department of theology considered in 
your work, it will impart much instruction and important 
information, it will, also, be suggestive of other related 
truths, and will set in motion trains of thought that will 
carry forward inquiring minds to principles from whose ap- 
proach they have been awed by the terrors of a frowning 
dogmatism. 

What reception your book will meet with, it requires 
no supernatural gift to foretell. To know its subject, 
is to know its fate. That it will be despised and re- 
jected by many, is as certain now as it will be a year 
hence. Neither honesty of purpose nor fidelity to truth 
will save any book from contumely that would unbind 
shackles sanctified by the authority of ages. That yours, 
therefore, will be cast out as evil by many, is a certainty 
about which you may set your heart at rest, if it has any 
disquieting doubt on the subject. That it will be welcomed 
by many is no less plain than its rejection. 

On some of your topics you will allow me to make a few 
desultory remarks. And first, 

In New England, at least, the day of earnest and com- 
paratively free inquiry is already up, and no lowering 
clouds, however threatening, can shut it down. The wheel 
that never goes back is advancing with power and dignity , 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. Vv 


as if conscious of bearing onward the majesty of truth. That 
so many well trained minds are at this moment calmly and 


conscientiously examining the great subject which your ~ 
y 8 g ah 


book considers,—that so many are reviewing their faith by 
the best lights, and that so many have already become dis- 
satisfied with unintelligible or conflicting terms, and are 
using their own eyes instead of Nicene or Athanasian sub- 
stitutes—these manifest and impressive facts demonstrate 
that the power of ecclesiastical prescription, however grave 
with age, is in a measure broken. Whatever resistance 
shall be made to the free investigation of the Scriptures, or 
the free expression of belief in their teachings, must, sooner 
or later, give way to the growing and irrepressible spirit of 
the age. 

Lam pleased to see in your book various documents and 
quotations, not elsewhere so readily accessible, collectively, 
which will interest and instruct many readers to whom they 
will be new, and also be at hand for reference by those to 
whom they are no strangers. Some of these extracts are of 
more than transient value, because they serve as striking . 
permanent statements or illustrations of great truths and 
great errors, great principles and great delusions. Some of 
them illustrate, in a remarkable manner, the strength and 
weakness of the human mind—the subtilties and the froward- 
ness of learning—the union of skepticism and credulity— 
and the intimate commixture of reason, faith, and supersti- 
tion. Irefer particularly to the Nicene and Athanasian 
Creeds, those superannuated fictions, which, for their power 
on past ages, will remain for ages to come, in the ecclesias- 
tical museum, among the most prominent monstrosities which 
the curious will be called to contemplate. Of the two, the 
Athanasian Creed, though somewhat younger than the 
Nicene, and, indeed, its offspring, will nevertheless be 
looked upon as the more venerable curiosity—a sort of 
ecclesiastical Sphinx, whose riddles have puzzled and con- 


= 


al ‘A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


founded the wise, by the philological precision and eeu 
grace of their eeconaabenls antitheses and mutually demol- 
ishing contradictions. 

{ am particularly gratified to see among your valuable 
quotations, the ‘* Solemn Address to the Deity”? by Dr. 
Watts. lam gratified that you have given the whole of it ; 
for, as Dr. Johnson says of Bishop Burnet’s Life of Roches- 
ter, ‘‘ It were an injury to the reader to offer him an abridg- 
ment.’? While it illustrates well your subject, it is, both 
in its own ingenuous self and in its clandestine history, an 
instructive lesson—in the one an example of conscientious 
frankness, and in the other a notable specimen of well-meant 
bigotry and shortsighted prudence. That what may, per- 
haps, be considered as the most interesting single chapter in 
the history of Dr. Watts’s mind and opinions should have been 
jealously suppressed for half a century, and that for another 
half century after a single copy had escaped to tell the fate of 
its consumed fellows, there should have been such a shyness of 
its publicity, cannot be accounted for with credit to the self- 
constituted guardians of Dr. Watts’s reputation. The frus- 
tration of this kindly intended conspiracy to suppress what 
was essential to his true biography, by the massacre of all 
the witnesses to one of its most interesting and instructive 
events, is an admonition to such as would do God service by 
so questionable means. ‘That abortive scheme of unwise 
friendship and piety, overruled by Divine providence, does 
but enhance the interest in what was so doomed and so pre- 
served ; while it also réminds one of still greater combina- 
tions which, with kindred zeal for God and man, have taxed 
their wits and tasked their energies to chain down forever 
truths that will always struggle for the mastery, till they 
prevail. 

You have noticed, I perceive, the attempt to create a 
prejudice against the Solemn Address, by the rumor that 
the author’s mind was somewhat impaired at the time he 


* 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. Vil 


thus expressed his dissent from prevalent views, and his 
earnest solicitude to understand more clearly and fully what 
he believed might be known respecting the doctrine in ques- 
tion. Itis no uncommon practice to impute to men in years 
a decay of mind, when their course is not agreeable to those 
who make the imputation. Especially is this likely to hap- 
pen, when the person whose present sentiments are opposed 
has in some considerable degree changed his opinions. The 
offensive change, ee oapetalls or wisely made, is 
almost sure to be attributed to mental decay by those who 
dislike it. 

When a late eminent statesman a few years ago advoca- 
ted, as a representative in Congress, the suppressed right of 
petition ina matter respecting which opposite views were 
entertained, the most reputable and influential presses filled 
the country with the rumor that his mind had become 
enfeebled by age. Nor was the rumor contradicted except 
by the universal admiration of what was felt by all to be the . 
most remarkable exhibition of learning, logic, tact and elo- 
quence ever displayed in the whole progress of his long public 
career. - But for this exhibition of combined powers hitherto 
‘unmatched even by himself, and never by any one else on the 
same floor, the false rumor might ere this have been recorded 
on the page of history as a creditable truth. In the case of 
Watts, his Address itself may be relied upon to refute the 
story of his impaired understanding, though if more evidence 
were needed, the most competent witnesses have deposed to 
its sation: It has on it the stamp of his own mind—the 
image of his own heart. Who can look at it without seeing 
his simplicity, his conscientiousness, his earnest love of 
truth, his discriminating use of language, his power of 
expression, his clear combinations of thought, his devout 
reverence for God, and, in short, the very make and genius 
of the man. ~ 

Nor is it uncommon for one person, in relating his own 


Vill A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


particular. experience, whether of the mind or of the affec- 
tions, to express that of others who have not equal courage 
or conscientiousness to declare it themselves. Such an 
example of moral heroism in one of eminent gifts and vir- 
tues, scrves as useful encouragement to the timid and the 
temporizing ; for if virtues, as well as vices, were not 
catching, they would be too few to save the world from the 
judgments of Sodom and Gomorrah. Independent, original 
virtue—that which is spontaneous as respects man—is 
among the rarest of jewels, and precious-as it is rare. To 
break the chain of any error fastened on the mind almost 
from the begmning of its consciousness, to come out from 
habitual associations loved and revered, to separate one’s 
self from the faith of many centuries and stand up against 
the anathemas of hoary tradition, to encounter one’s own 
opinions proclaimed for many years to living and endeared 
assemblies and published to the world in one’s own admired 
books, to expose one’s self to a social atmosphere from 
which the accustomed sunshine is withdrawn and which it 
may never revisit—to do and endure all this in the fullness 
of one’s honors, and when the infirmities of age need the 
support of more than wonted kindness, requires a fervent 
love of truth, the full strength of conscience, and a deep 
persuasion of the approval of God. Such appears to have 
been the magnanimity of Watts when, near the close of 
life and after mature deliberation, he determined to publish, 
as introductory to ‘‘ A Faithful Inquiry after the Ancient 
and Original Doctrine of the Trinity taught by Christ and 
his Apostles,” the ‘‘ Solemn Address’? with which you 
have enriched your volume. 

There is one embarrassment to a just consideration of 
your work by many who conscientiously seek for truth. It 
is the power of habitual impressions, made early and late, 
that the subject is too mysterious for human investigation. 
Under the power of this educated habit of mind, they are 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. 1x 


awed from the proper use of their own understandings, and 
feeling that inquiry is vain and presumptuous, they shrink 
from the attempt and keep away from accessible truth. 

It has been said a thousand times, and with an air of sat- 
isfied wisdom if not of magisterial rebuke, that what seems 
to be a contradiction in the doctrine of a tripersonal God- 
head, is such only to our limited faculties ;—that God is 
infinite, and that, therefore, what is mysterious and irrecon- 
cilable to our limited understanding, may nevertheless be 
true, and be revealed to us as a credible truth ;— that it is 
presumptuous and rashly irreverent in such beings as we 
are, to take upon us to determine what may or may not be 
true in respect to a being whose nature is unlike ours, and 
confessedly past finding out. : 

But, however plausible this method of covering up the 
difficulty may be, and however satisfactory it may have 
been to others, for me it neither removes nor conceals the 
difficulty ; for what I object to is not the incomprehensible- 
ness of the Divine nature, whose perfections all must admit 
to surpass the comprehension of human or angelic minds, 
put it is the real and discernible inconsistency of the import 
of terms, the real and manifest contradictions of thought 
and sentiment, to which I demur, feeling confident, as I do 
and cannot but feel, that no vastness however great, that no 
immensity of any being, that no perfections even of the Di- 
vine Mind, can be large enough for an honest contradiction 
of language, for an appropriate conflict of thought, or for 
the admission of a faith that misplaces and supercedes the 
knowledge which comes from our own consciousness, from 
the evidence of our own senses, or from those simple con- 
victions of reason which, as if inevitable by man, are uni- 
versal to our race in every age and aspect of their being. . 

However inscrutable may be the Divine nature, whatever 
height or depth of mystery may pertain to it, for the exer- 
cise of our admiration and humility ; these things are, te 


er A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


my mind, both plain and immoveable truths, viz., that in 
the Divine nature there can be nothing cither contradictory 
to itself, or contradictory to human reason. There may and 
must he in the nature of the Infinite One, that which illim- 
itably transcends the highest human ent which, 

when we attempt to scarch it out, not only bafiles and dia 
courages our weak endeavor, ut makes us feel how un- 
knowing we are, and conipele: us to bow with devout won- 
der before the incomprehensible majesty of eternal, infinite, 

all-knowing and all-sovereign Existence. But even sae 
we are the most awed by the thought of his infinities, and 
the most humbled by the feeling of our own comparative 
nothingness, such views and feelings neither destroy nor at 
all dicath ihe conviction that our own reason must decide 
what is contradictor y in human language, and that no per- 
fections of the Godhead can require or justify our assent to 
any asserted harmony of conflicting terms—the vehicles of 
thought, and therefore not only a war of language, but a 
conflict of the sentiments which they legitimately, or by 
their proper force, convey. 

If it is the wisdom and the glory of human reason, to 
confess that there are mysteries, eternal, unreyealable mys- 
teries, in the Divine nature, and if this ever changeless 
truth lies at the foundation of intelligent and: unceasing 
confidence in the Divine government, in the midst of all 
perplexities,—if it is this very truth that stills the tumult 
of our griefs and fears, and makes serene ag it were the 
troubled atmosphere of our souls,—and if this calmness and 
serenity do but increase as we become more profoundly 
penetrated with the assurance of the mystery of the God- 
head, so that when, to our vision, clouds and darkness 
envelop his throne, we feel security and gladness in the be- 
lief that he fieelien in unapproachable and all-glorious light ; 
even then our conviction does not fail or falter, that no 
mystery of the Divine nature, no impenctrable secret of the 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. xi 


Divine government, no supposable wisdom of a Divine 
revelation, can interpose to sct aside what reason clearly 
teaches, what the senses actually know, or what conscious- 
ness, without argument and without delay, teaches us is 
reliable and sure. 

No revelation, though eee on miracle should cluster 
to sustain it, can persuade a rational mind, in the legitimate 
and due exercise of its powers, that a being can be present 
at the placé from which he is at the same time absent, that 
two and three make six or exceed not four, that the whole 
of a thing is either more or less than all its parts, that free- 
dom and constraint are predicable of one and the same 
thing, in one and the same particular, at one and the same 
time, that folly and wisdom are convertible terms, alike 
descriptive of an individual act, or that vice and virtue 
have the same qualities, Weaver vice and universal virtue 
alike tending to universal good. 

Such propositions, coming from any quarter, or made, in 
whatever circumstances, to any being, would be false in 
themselves,—denials of truth, which no amount of testi- 
mony, from whatever source, can authenticate for our ben- 
efit,——conflicts, which no power finite or infinite can har- 
monize ; and any accumulation of testimony, of whatever 
kind od from whatever sceming quarter, to their agree- 
ment, instead of changing our views, would beget distrust 
of such testimony, and reassure us of the fidelity of those 
original powers and resources of knowledge which belong to ~ 
the condition and circumstances of our race, for their relia- 
ble employment and benefit so long as that eanseiglon and 
those circumstances shall abide lonelier. | 

That a subject, proper for man’s condition, and especially 

one which demands his assent, reproves his doubt, and 
~ threatens his disbelief,—that such a subject is metaphysical, 
and in its nature subtile and abstruse, or that it has respect 
to an infinite being, gives no occasion for either unmeaning | 


xu A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


or contradictory terms, whether in respect to what can or 
what cannot be known of it. The abstruseness and subtilty 
of such a subject, instead of excusing or being an occasion 
for insignificancy or looseness of language, would, for that 
very reason, seem to demand that the language used in any 
statement respecting it, should be definite, and express 
clear, precise, and intelligible ideas. And, surely, it is not 
creditable to say, in respect to a being whose nature is in 
part intelligible, and in part incomprehensible, that what is 
beyond our knowledge may therefore be spoken of contra- 
dictorily, or be spoken of more confusedly or less definitely 
than what is comprehensible by us. If there is need of 
speaking, there is need of being understood, and that what- 
ever may be the nature of the subject spoken of. 

Should any one tell me, no matter on what apparent 
authority, that three beings, each equal to either of the 
other two, are so united that they constitute but one being, 
equal only to each of the three, I am compelled to reject 
the statement as absurd and intuitively false ; for the axiom, 
applied to physical science, that a part is less. than the 
whole, or that the whole is greater than a part, is equally 
applicable to metaphysical or spiritual science. So long as 
the truth that three are more than one, or that three cannot 
be only one, is a truth irrespective and independent of the 
nature of the objects to which numbers are applied ; so 
long must it be true that any statement assuming that they 
are or can be, in any strict and proper sense, equal, or in 
any strict and proper sense, identical, is absurd, and cannot 
be abstractly presented and really contemplated without in- 
stant and universal rejection. To say that three beings are 
mysteriously and incomiprehensibly but one being, is tanta- 
mount to saying that the difference between one and three 
is mysterious and incomprehensible, or rather, that one and 
three are, in a mysterious and incomprehensible manner, 
both numerically equal and numerically unequal, 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. Xi 


But if the nature of the object to which numbers are 
applied, has no power to change and to confound the nature 
of numbers themselves, then, to say that three spiritual 
beings, finite or infinite, are strictly and truly but one being, 
or that one such being is, strictly and truly, three, is as 
contradictory and self evidently false and absurd, as to say 
that three animals, three plants, or the three angles of a tri- 
angle are but one,—or that any one sole individual of these 
classes of objects, is equal to the whole number of the class 
considered. Nor could a revelation authenticate such an 
absurdity, for no testimony could make it rationally credi- 
ble. No being in the universe-can justly require such a 
belief ; for belief can never come into competition with 
knowledge. Nothing can make such knowledge either more 
or less certain. Consciousness and intuitive knowledge ex- 
clude proof, argument, revelation and doubt. 

But if, instead of the term beg, the term person is 
used, nothing can be truly gained by the substitution. If 
the term person is allowed to have any assignable and appre- 
ciable meaning, whatever object it may be applied to, it is 
subject to the same principles which are above applied to 
the term being. But if it has no assignable or appreciable 
meaning, then it is sheer nonsense to those who are called 
upon for their assent to it; and ‘‘a tinkling cymbal ”’ or 
any other senseless sound is only just as good for nething as 
itself, if things equal to the same thing are equal to one 
another. 

But, perhaps, some light may be cast on the subject in 
hand, by considering the possible, and the only possible 
meanings of the term person. These meanings are two, and 
only two; for the term must denote entity or nonentity— 
- that which is, or that which is nota being. No other use 
-of the term is supposable. If then it is used to signify a 
being, it has already been disposed of in my remarks on the 
impossible unity or identity, strict and proper, of three dis- 


XIV A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


tinct, individual beings. Oneness and plurality are contra- 
dictory terms, the affirmation of either of which is a denial 
of the other, in respect to whatever object, finite or infinite, 
the affirmation may be made. But if, on the other. hand, 
the term person is used to exclude the idea of a distinct, m- 
dividual being, or, which-is the same thing, is used to 
denote what is not of itself a being; then it cannot have 
the nature, attributes, or properties of a being, for the na- 
-ture and attributes or properties of a bemg are tantamount 
to being itself ; for nothing else can be supposed to consti- 
tute being, or to be predicable of it. 

The idea of anything, no matter what name is given to 
it, having the nature, attributes and properties of a God, is 
nothing else than the idea of a God, with nothing wanting 
to complete Deity ; and the idea of three objects distinct 
and individual, each having the nature, attributes and pro- 
perties of a God, falls nothing short of the idea of three 
Gods, each having all that is essential to full and perfect 
Deity. 

Those who: hold the doctrine of a tripersonal Godhead 
seem to be conscious of a dilemma, and all of them feeling 
obliged to take one of its horns, they cannot agree among 
themselves which to seize, and, therefore, in their straits, 
some grasp the one, and some the other. Neither after 
choosing, will they stick to their choice. To keep still will 
not do, for saying nothing is unsafe, while speaking out 1s 
no safer, Accordingly Professor Pond, when he has told 
us that the word person denotes a ‘‘ real, substantial, eternal 
distinction in the Godhead,’ is not content to leave the 
matter there, as if fearing legitimate consequences, but tells 
us elsewhere, that, ‘¢ Trinitarians have said a thousand 
times, that they use the word person, not as denoting a per- 
fectly distinct understanding, consciousness, and will.” 
And Professor Hodge, of Princeton, somewhat more vali- 
ant than him of Bangor, leaves out the word ‘ perfectly,” 


LETTER TO THE sieges 


and affirms outright, that ‘‘° the Habit has never taught / 
that there are three consciousnesses, intelligences, and wills > 
in God.” “On the other hand, Dr. Taylor of New Haven 
and Dr. Beecher of | Cinaiinats teach the distinct conscious- 
ness, intelligence, and will, of each of the three persons in 
the Godhead.) But at Andover, Professor Stuart assigns 
no meaning and knows no meaning to the word person, nor 
will he so much as venture to translate the definitions of 
person given in Latin by various learned and venerable 
theologians of Europe, from a conscious inability to under- 
stand thezr meaning. 

I cannot say precisely why Dr. Pond is so careful to in- 
terpose the word ‘‘ perfectly?’ in his caveat in behalf of 
‘¢ Tyinitarians,’? who have ‘‘a thousand times’? made their 
disclaimer of three distinct sets of attributes for one God. 
Certainly that discreet word perfectly was not jostled in by 
accident ; and yet, however carefully it was chosen to pro- 
tect his caveat, it virtually neutralizes and abandons the 
disclaimer aide which it evidently meant to shelter the 
doctrine of tripersonality. That qualifying word is wholly 
out of place in relation to its subject,—distinct conscious- 
nesg, understanding, and will having no grades or shades, 
but being absolutely perfect, or else not being atall. As, 
however, the word was selected by the learned Professor 
as a careful guard, and as there was nothing to guard 
against but a perfectly distinct consciousness, understanding, 
and will, it is virtually an admission that there is, after all, 
among ‘‘ Trinitarians,’’ some distinct, some individual, some 
separate, some exclusively appropriate consciousness, un- 
derstanding, and will—a sort of incomplete and imperfect 
existence of those attributes of an individual in each of the 
persons. That select and snugly adjusted word ‘‘ per- 
fectly,” is a shrewd device, and an ingenious salvo both to 
the learned Doctor and his many Tripersonal friends ; for 
had he left out the intended qualification, and said outright, 


XV: 


\ 


f 
4 
; 
\ 


Xvi A BIBLICAL TRINITY. . 


to distinguish genuine from spurious ‘‘ Trinitarians,’’ that 
the former ‘‘ have said a thousand times, that they use the 
term person, not as denoting a... . distinct consciousness, 
understanding, and will,’’? he would have denied to a ma- 
jority of his brother professors'and ministers in New Eng- 
land, now called orthodox, their title to be called ‘‘ Trini- 
tarians.”’ 

It is really difficult to imagine why Dr. Hodge is so shy 
of the doctrine of ‘‘ three consciousnesses, intelligences and 
wills in God.’?? Why should Ae who holds and teaches, as 
a cardinal truth, the doctrine of three persons in the God- 
head actually consulting and covenanting with each other, 
have any qualms about the doctrine of three sets of attri- 
butes in the Godhead—a complete set for each Person ? 
One would suppose that he would hasten to entertain it as 
his only relief from self-contradiction, unless he also sees as 
gross a self-contradiction in rejecting it. That less than two 
understandings and wills can counsel and covenant, is so ob- 
viously absurd, that no possible authority can warrant its be- 
lief. No evidence of a revelation can be so clear and com- 
plete, as the evidence of the falseness of such a proposition 
would be. ‘The reception of a revelation by a rational 
mind, in respect to truths or facts above reason but not con- 
flicting with it, depends on testimony ; but the proposition 
in hand is intuitively false. Testimony cannot change the 
conviction of its falseness, till it shall change the terms of 
the proposition itself. Every dictate of reason absolutely 
forbids the belief of it—even that reason by whose dictates 
we can only approximate to certainty by inductions from 
testimony. The absurdity is as gross in respect to an infi- 
nite, as to a finite nature. To think of doing away with 
the absurdity by interposing the consideration of infinitude, 
is of itself another gross absurdity ; as much so as it would 
be to think of doing away the quality of nonsense by alleg- 
ing its illimitable quantity. 


~ 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XvVll 


The disclaimer of Dr. Hodge is more than strange—it is 
marvelous. That so accomplished a scholar and so well 
trained a thinker should not only misrepresent the fathers, ~~ 
but be willing to take refuge behind so flimsy and transpa-" 
rent a screen, is itself a mystery which the doctrine of 
““ mystery’? is insufficient to explain. He knows full well, 
he cannot but know absolutely, and try to impose on him- 
self as he may, still he cannot help knowing that less than 
two understandings cannot cownsel, cannot covenant—that in- 
terchange of thought-must be the act of separate wnderstand- 
ings—that mutual stipulations and mutual conditions can 
be made and accepted only by, and can be thought of only 
in respect to, distinct and independent wills. Nor can he 
by any writhings of the mind free it from the certainty that 
the number of the conscrowsnesses must be equal to the num- 
ber of the understandings and wills. 

Acute and learned men may split metaphysics into invis- 
ibility, and twist words into all possible contortions, and do 
their utmost to vex common sense into a faith which it ab- 
hors ; but there is a spirit in man that delivers him from the 
meshes of metaphysical entanglements—-an understanding 
from the Lord, by which he clears his way out of the chaos 
in which scholastic words and phrases would leave him 
mazed and. confounded. 

I have a word to say in respect to a class of Tripersonal- 
ists, or rather, a class whe fraternize with orthodox Trinita- 
rians, retaining the word person but subscribing to it as a 
term of no meaning—wholly unintelligible. _ This is a great 
change in the treatment of a term which for so many cen- 
turies has been a watch-word in the church, and whose use 
has been insisted on, beth as a test and a defense of Gospel 
truth. Perhaps one of the mildest forms of setting forth its 
importance and necessity, is in the following, by Dr. South, 
who says, (Vol. I. Serm. 7,) ‘* A plurality of persons 


XV A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


or personal subsistences in the Divine nature, is a great 
mystery, and so to be acknowledged by all who really are 
and profess themselves Christians.’? This comports sub- 
stantially with the Athanasian Creed: “ which except a 
man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.’?—I say the 
change is great from the former veneration of the term, the 
care which had been given to define its meaning and the use. 
of its meaning ‘to keep off heretics,’”” to its present ex- 
hausted import and cold reception. They do not absolutely 
reject the term; they only absolve it from all meaning. 
They patiently acquiesce in its sound as a shibboleth ; 
though if they could have their own way without fretting 
their neighbors, they would prefer its disuse altogether. 

I cannot but regard it as evidence of real “ progress,”? 
that so large a class, including so many influential and ven- 
erable names, have got so far in advance of past generations 
and of their own former selves as to deny a meaning to that 
long revered and most practical term. It at least proves 
their conviction that to assign to it a definite meaning, would 
involve in absurdity any who should venture to declare lis 
signification. Such a denial 1 call progress, because it 
abandons the old theological stopping-place, and leaves the 
mind free to take its course out of the region of contradic- 
tions into the domain of homogeneous truth. This denial is, 
virtually, a condemnation of the past, and as such, it opens 
the door of hope for the future. ans 

I know it is thought by some, whose opinions in such mat- 


ters are entitled to much respect, that Dr. Emmons made, 


or at least sanctioned an innovation on the stereotyped ortho- 

doxy of the church catholic, when he said, ‘‘ We have as 

clear an idea of these three Divine Persons as of three hu- 

man persons. ‘There is no mystery in the personality of 

the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though there ig @ pro- 

found mystery in their being one God.’ But, to my 
_* Works, vol. IV. p. 125. | 


Ppa ee ee 


ae eth Sale 8 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XIX 


view, this is anything but a novelty. It seems to me to be 
rather a statement, in his own clear way, of an old and fa- 
milar view of the subject. This, if I mistake not, is man-_ 
ifest from the definitions of the term person as given by 
some of the most learned and acute of his Transatlantic 
predecessors at different periods from the time of the Refor- 
mation, and who themselves were no more explicit than the 
Nicene and Athanasian fathers meant to be. Their difficul- 
ty was not in defining what person means, but in reconciling 
their definitions of it with the doctrine of the Divine unity— 
just the same difficulty which made Emmons pause before 
his own ‘‘ profound mystery.’? As the term person, in ref- 
‘erence to man, signifies the individuality of a human being, 
so Emmons, in common with the older theologians referred to, 
uses the term, in-reference to either the Father, Son, or Holy 
Ghost, to express the individuality of a Divine being—the 
‘¢ profound mystery’’ of which is, in making three Divine 
individuals but one Divine individual. There was no ob- 
scurity in the term as referring to the three, severally. The 
whole trouble was in harmonizing contradictions in terms— 
in making unity of plurality—in reducing three ‘‘ distinct”? 
and ‘‘ separate’? objects of contemplation, each having all 
Divine attributes, to one sole object having neither more nor 
less than precisely the same attributes. This is indeed a 
“¢ yrofound mystery,’’ and must remain a matter of wonder 
till, in spite of creeds, councils, and spiritual faggots, the 
mind plucks up courage to see and reject contradictions and 
absurdities. 

But, no matter in what difficulty or inconsistency a defi- 
nition of the term person may involve some other separate 
statement, as a defination itis independent of that statement, 
and in its own special application is unmysterious and easily 
intelligible—as much so as if applied to the mythological Ju- 
piter, Mercury, or Minerva, of the Greeks. Emmons used 


xX A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


the term person substantially as does Locke, when he defines 
person as ‘‘ a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and 
reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same think- 
ing thing at different times and places.””* That Emmons 
does, in fact, harmonize with the highest orthodoxly Trini- 
tarian authorities of a more reverend date than his alleged 
innovation, is, I think, manifest from the following defini- 
tions of the term person which I find, in Latin, collected in 
Professor Stuart’s learned and valuable Miscellanies, (p. 60. ) 
with which many more might be cited not less precise and 
intelligible. 

Melancthon: ‘* An individual substance, intelligent, in- 
communicable, not sustained’in another nature.”’ 

Buddaeus: ‘‘ A single substance, complete, incommuni- 
cable, not sustained by another person.?? = * ' 

Morus: ‘‘ A being by itself [ens per se], that under- 
stands and acts with intelligence.”’ 

Reinhard: ‘* An individual being [individuum] of an 
incomplete subsistence, acting freely of itself, and partaking 
[independently] of Divine perfections.”? 

Gerhard: ‘* An individual substance, intelligent, incom- 
municable, that is not sustained in another, or by another.’ 

Zanchius: ‘‘ The Divine essence itself distinguished by 
its own mode of subsisting.’’ 

Turretin: ‘‘ The word person is properly a concrete, not 
an abstract term, that denotes, besides the form that is per- 
sonality, the bemg [subjectum] also, with the form from 
which it takes its name.’? 

Calvin: ‘‘ A subsistence in the essence of God, which, 
though related to others, is nevertheless distinguished by an 
incommunicable property [an ownership that cannot be an- 
other’s].”? dee 

Perhaps, as I make no pretensions to critical acumen in 
any language, I should apologize for presuming to translate 


* Essay on the Human Understanding, Book II. ch. 27. 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. | XX1 


what the very learned Professor, to whose Miscellanies I am 
indebted, so modestly declines giving to the English reader, 
on the principle that, ‘‘ to translate implies an understand- 
ing of what one professes to represent in another language. ??— 
I may not have done exact justice to every word of the 
original definitions, though I think the main thoughts are 
represented with all the precision which the case requires. 
I confess that I have had much less difficulty in finding ac- 
credited words in our own language corresponding to the 
original Latin of these acute technical fathers, than in match- 
ing what is plain in their definitions with what is as plain in 
their contradictions of them. 

And what do those definitions really and plainly teach ? 
Melancthon, the accomplished scholar and theologian, and 
the friend and coadjutor of Luther may, as respects the 
Protestants, be considered as representing the period of the 
Reformation. In his definition, given to discriminate each 
person from his divine Coéqual, and, also, from the united 
Godhead, we are taught that each person is an individual 
substance, that each individual substance hag its own intelli- 
gence, that each is communicable, and that neither person 
has any nature but his own. All this is directly taught or 
clearly implied in the definition by Melancthon. How 
many dntellzgences are there in three persons, each of which 
is an individual substance having its own intelligence’? 

The rest of those masters, described by Professor Stuart 
as *‘ leading theologians on the continent of Europe,’ taught 
by their various defining terms, that each person is an indi- 
vidual substance—each a being by itself [ens per se]—an 
intelligent individual being—a single, complete, self-sus- 
tained substance—a being that acts with understanding—an 
individual free agent having divine perfections—each the 
divine essence itself in its own mode of subsisting—a sub- 
sistence, in the Divine essence, which is only related to 
other sghaistaneeas in the Divine essence, each subsistence 


XXil A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


being wholly distinct from any other. If, then, each person 
is, by itself, an intelligent free agent, and there are three 
such persons, each being individually and distinctly an in- 
telligent free agent, and if each has separately all divine 
perfections, what is such language good for but to unbrain 
those who use it, if there are not three sets of attributes, 
one to each person or being? If three persons have sever- 
ally and individually complete divine attributes, can either 
of them be other than a God by himself ?—and if there are 
three such persons, each a God by himself, then the number 
of Gods may be ascertained by counting on one’s fingers. 

Whatever else the ‘‘ leading theologians’’ may have 
taught elsewhere, or whatever incongruity may attach to the 
definitions themselves, and whatever care or pains may be 
taken to condense, confound, or unite three such persons 
into one being, the attempt is at once abhorrent to language 
and to common sense. 

You have very justly taken notice of Dr. Pond, who fig- 
ures considerably in the concerted alarm of ‘‘ heresy,’’ now 
ringing in the ears of the church. He is certainly among 
the most valiant defenders of what he regards as ‘‘ the 
good old way.’? His views are entitled to consideration as 
haying been collated from those of the worthies who in older 
times have given law to the church, and thus provided an 
apology for the saying, ‘‘ So the church has always under- 
stood the subject.”? Some of his views of the old triperson- 
al theory seem to be not far, if at all, out of the way. 
Most real Tripersonalists will recognize in the following 
statement of the learned Professor at Bangor, the real 
‘tradition of the elders.”? It runs thus: ‘‘ The Unitarian 
believes in one God in one Person; while the Trinitarian 
believes in one God in three Persons. And those three 
must be, not fictitious, dramatic, representative Persons, 
like the characters in a romance or a play; but real, swb- — 
stantial, eternal distinctions in the one undivided essence of 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXL 


the Godhead.’’* In this view Dr. P. seems to harmonize 
with the illustrious Turretin, who more briefly says, thas 
“the term person is not See but concrete.”? 

Allow me to express to you a few thoughts suggested by 
the foregoing statement of Dr. P., in addition to your own 
remarks on the same passage. If the term person denotes 
a ‘‘real distinction,’’ it of course denotes some property, 
attribute, or quality excluded from that, from which it is 
really distinct ; or, in other words, its attributes must be ex- 
clusively its own—they must be the attributes of one person, 
as contradistinguished from those of any other person.—lIf 
this ‘‘ real’’ distinction is also ‘‘ swbstantzal,’’ then does it 
of course include an essence or a nature which is excluded 
from that from which it is realiy and substantially distinct ; 
for whatever is substantially distinct from anything else, 
must be se in nature or essence.—And if this real and sub- 
stantial distinction is also ‘‘ eternad,’’ then is there some at- 
tribute, nature, or essence eternally included in such a dis- 
tinction, which is eternally excluded from that from which 
it is so distinguished : for, whatever is really, substantially, 
and eternally included in any object, whether called being, 
person, or what not, can be nothing more, less, or else, than 
some attribute, nature, or essence of that object.—For, not 
only can nothing be conceived of as pertaining to or inhering 
in any object whatever, that is not its attribute, nature, or 
essence, but the supposition to the contrary is absurd, as 
both confounding and denying the proper, definite, and in- 
telligible use of ‘the terms employed. 

But if any should object that there may be a ‘‘ redatzon’? 
distinct from attribute, nature, or essence, and that the 
term person is~used as expressive uf such relation, then 
would it be proper to consider what is included in, or signi- 
fied by, that relation. And, evidently, it must mean one 
of two things, viz., either a relation of a part to the whole 


* Pond’s Review of Bushnell. 


XXIV A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


of one general object, of which it is only a part, or a rela- 
tion of one entire object to another distinct from itself, and 
in no true and proper sense identical with itself: for, by 
the term, relationship excludes identity, and is not itself 
predicable of any object in respect to itself. 

- If, then, the term person is used as expressive of a rela- 
tion of part to part, of the same general object, then neither 
of the parts so denoted can be correctly spoken of as having 
the complete and entire attributes, nature, or essence of that 
object: for, whatever is only a part, however large the 
fraction, cannot be, or be properly regarded as, the whole, 
or as, in any true and intelligible sense, egual to the whole. 
And if this safe and self-evident principle is applied to either 
person in the Trinity, that person, whether first, second, or 
third, cannot be a perfect, complete, and entire God, noth- 
ing being absent which truly and properly belongs to the 
real, substantial, and eternal God who is adored as having 
every perfection. 

But if the only alternative is assumed, viz., that the re- 
lation signified by person, is the relation, not of part to part, 
but of a whole to some other whole, or in other words, if 
such relation be that of one complete, entire, perfect, and 
distinct object—no matter what its name-—to another object 
complete, entire, perfect, and distinct, then, however loose- 
ly used, arbitrarily confounded, or firmly stereotyped our 
terms may be, still the fact is clear and demonstrable, that 
these distinct objects, however named, are distinct Bernes, 
each possessing whatever is comprehended in any communi- 
cable or intelligible idea of beeng, essence, or substance. 
And if the principle just stated be applied to a real, sub- 
stantial, and eternally distinct person, then such term, 
though never so many individuals, for never so long a time, 
deny or seck to evade its true and proper force, can mean 
nothing else than a real, substantial, eternal, and eternally 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXV 


distinct God—a doctrine which excludes and virtually de- 
nies the doctrine of essential wnity in the Godhead. 

The notion that a general consent of the church, for many 
centuries, to a dogma, is reliable evidence of its truth, is 
unsubstantial and quite unworthy to be harbored in places 
where it has been entertained with special honors. Some 
infirmity of the dogma to be sustained “by it, may best 
account for the pertinacity and gravity with which its claim 
to confidence is sometimes urged. So important, if not 
indispensable, has this assumed evidence been considered, 
that it has been found expedient to prop it up by another 
assumption as rash as the former is extravagant. This 
second assumption, auxiliary to the first, is, that the Divine 
wisdom and goodness are too provident for the honor and 
welfare of the church to permit its long continuance in any 
gross error. 

Now, to say nothing of the incompetency of human dis- 
cretion, though ever so kindly disposed, to predetermine the 
best rethiod of God’s providence instead of watching its 
actual development,—to say nothing of the long night which 
once confessedly brooded over the church itself, so that 
hardly a glimpse of its proper glory was discernible through 
the thick and settled gloom,—leaving out of sight these and 
other objections to the theory of Ged’s restricted wisdom and 
goodness in behalf of the church, and returning to the inde- 
pendent assumption that the long harmony of the church, 
respecting any one of its tenets is sufficient evidence of its 
truth ; what is there, I would ask, in the nature, circum- 
stances, or history of man, to warrant a reliance on such 
proof ? 

For myself, I freely ponte that I have not as yet dis- 
covered anything in human nature, its condition or its 
history that will allow me to take, on mere trust; any dogma 
which may have been entertained by the general and unin- 
terrupted consent of the church from the era, or from — 


XXVI ; A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


beyond the era of the authorative Council of Nice, If the 
presumption seems strong that such numbers could hardly 
have harmonized for so many centuries in their credence of 
error, that presumption should not so fill the mind as to 
~ leave no room for the admission of absolute conflicting proof. 
Though the presumption be as reasonable as a presumption 
can be, and though I may greatly respect it while it is a 
presumption, I am bound to respect much more the decision 
of my own understanding, on a due consideration of all the 
evidence of the truth or falseness of any proposition that lies 
within the scope of my discernment. 

But it is a matter of interesting and profitable inquiry, as 
to what causes give longevity to error among men, from 
which order of beings the church on earth has not clean 
escaped. It is not questioned that, for a brzef period, 
error, great error, may spread wide in the church. The 
only difficulty seems to be about its long continuance on the 
broad scale of its admitted diffusion. As revelation assigns 
no definite limit as to the number over whom religious error 
may prevail, any more than to secular error ; so it assigns 
no definite limit as to the duration of either this or that, both 
of which are sometimes much blended and mutually-influen- 
tial in their diffusion and continuance. 

One would suppose that the admission, so freely made, as 
to the prevalence of error for a time, would make less 
incredible the idea of its long continuance, since, as a gene- 
ral rule, it is quite as easy to keep out as to root out mischief 
of any kind. If human reason had liberty to pry mto such 
matters as the wisest and best methods of Divine providence, 
I do not see why it should not quite as readily come to the 
conclusion that it would be wiser and better to prevent error 
from spreading over the church at all, than to eradicate it 
after allowing it to work mischief for a season, whether 
longer or shorter. But this is beyond our depth, and instead 
of intruding our wisdom and goodness where they do not 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXVii 


appear to be wanted, it seems wiser to keep within our more 


evident province, and learn, from abundant sources of infor- 
mation, that physical disease is not more transmissible from 
parent to child, than is error, whether secular or religious, 
from age to age. 

The oeld’s experience is full of proof, that in matters: of 
faith, possesszon is a title hard-to be disturbed, and that the 
longer it continues, the stronger it grows. This very plain 
matter of fact comes of a salutary principle i in the nature of 
man, without which no truth could gain a foothold; for 
eihone it, there could be no such thing as character— 
nothing to create the expectation that the man of to-day, 
will be the man of to-morrow. The habits of a community, 
whether’a church or a nation, are, like those of an individual, 
self-perpetuating. How Ios the distinctive traits of. the 
Roman and the Greek churches have propagated themselves. 
In like manner did the Lutherans in Germany and the Cal- 
Vinists in Switzerland preserve what was peculiar to each, 
as well as what was common to both. Had Congregation- 
alism taken possession of Scotland under the auspices of 
Knox, and Presbyterianism, of New-England, by consent 
of the Pilgrims, their ecclesiastical polity had this day been 
the reverse of what it is. The distinct character of the 
Jewish faith at this hour, is the legitimate offspring of the 
faith established at Horeb more than three thousand years 

0. : ; 

But if the assumption that the long prevalence of a 
doctrine is a test of its truth, should be ventured upon with 
great modesty, if at all; a little prudence might be a saving 
grace to any who is tempted to assume the* fact that the 
church has always maintained the doctrine in question. To 
claim that they only are ‘‘ the church’? who maintain that 
‘doctrme, would savor much more of arrogance than of argu- 
ment; while it would not be over discreet to affirm that 


XXVIll A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


even they have maintained their constant faith by the - 
cogency or persuasion of the gospel. 

But this unbroken unity, or this fixed ascendeney, so 
much vaunted of—what is it? and who has seen it? 
History has no record of the fact, though scriveners are not 
wanting impatient to record it. A single sect denying the 
doctrine of tripersonality, but embarrassed by extraneous 
errors and consequent divisions, all but shifted the general 
current of faith into their channel. The theological battle 
fought at Nice, left tripersonality master of the field; and 
who does not know that the first victory is strength for future 
conquest ? A single victory at Actium, which a random 
arrow might have turned in favor of Antony, placed a long 
line of Ceesars on the throne, and gave a current te human 
affairs which has never ceased to flow. Unless the heathen 
saying, that ‘‘the conqueror is Heayen’s favorite’? has 
become a gospel truth, triumph at Nice is but small evidence 
for the doctrine of the victors. 

But when has the Nicene faith kept the undisputed 
mastery by its own proper force, independently of secular 
power and carnal weapons? From that day to this, when- 
ever there has been an approximation to free mquiry, that 
faith has been resisted by great and good men. And even 
the triumph at Nice was only the successful beginning of a 
campaign in which victory hovered alternately over the 
* yival standards, either in the Eastern or Western parts of 
the empire, -for nearly two hundred years. ' For a consider- 
able time, the two parties by turns had possession of the 
imperial throne, and in no part of the long controversy can 
“it be safely said, that ‘‘the church’? won the victory by 
fhe power of truth in a fair and open field. Ecclesiastical 
ambition, rivalry, and intrigue, aided by the caprice or the 
necessities of civil despotism, had too large a share, during 
all that period of darkness and storm, in the management of 
spiritual affairs, to authorize a prescriptive claim in behalf 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XX1X 


of any doctrine then having the supremacy. Perhaps it is 
enough here to say, that, while in the Eastern parts of the 
empire the supremacy of faith was restless till a combination 
of unspiritual influences settled the controversy in favor of 
the tripersonalists ; their opponents prevailed in the West, 
till, near the close of the fifth century, the orthodox Clovis 
reversed the creed.of that part of the empire. In Northern 
Africa, the Anti-Nicene faith was routed by the army of 
Belisarius, near the middle of the sixth century, and among 
the Lombards it was maintained till after the middle of the 
seventh. Thus after having been banished, in one quarter 
by decrees of Councils, and put to the sword in another by 
imperial armies, and after having been, by turns, cherished 
and persecuted by powerful sovereigns as whim or caprice 
ruled the hour, it was hushed for several centuries of igno- 
rance and despotism. : 

It is not out of place, in relation to your general subject, 
to make a few remarks respecting looseness of terms and 
figurative language. The meaning of words must be more 
intelligible, more agreed upon, and more fixed, among the 
learned who in fact have so much control over faith and 
fellowship. ‘Theological terms play fast and loose even in 
the professors chair, as systems or changes of systems re- 
quire. Of this fact the term person has had sad experience, 
considering the assent to its import which has been go 
strenuously insisted on as a condition of salvation. It has 
had this meaning, or that, or the other, or none at all, ag 
the exigency of controversy required. It has been used ag 
a hiding-place for logic to dodge under when afraid of being 
hit, while it has served as a battery when opposition to it 
was unskilfully managed. Its vagueness has had for many, 
a bewitching charm. Without telling, or being so irreve- 
-rent as to suspect what it means, they haye been delighted 
to get so far as to say, with great confidence, ‘‘ It means 


XXX A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


something, we cannot tell what, that lays a foundation for : 
a mysterious something else.’’ 

Now, whatever pleasure or comfort this mystification of 
language may have afforded in times gone by, I think the 
symptoms are not equivocal, that the next generation, if not 
its predecessor, will not abide it. The pleasure of such an 
unsuspected meaning is not so rational as that of certain ad- 
mirers of Junius, of whom Johnson so sarcastically said, 
‘< They who cannot understand his meaning, hope he means 
rebellion.’ 

Looseness of language and facility of belief, are imstruc- 
tively hit off by the same vigorous author, in his larger 
Dictionary, under the verb to worm, which he defines :— 
‘6 To extract something, nobody knows what, from under a 
dog’s tongue, to prevent him, nobody knows why, from 
running mad.’?—There is much in science, of all sorts, 
theological by no means excepted, that might be much im- 
proved, if their professors would take a hint from the casual, 
but sagacious lesson of the great English lexicographer.— 
Said the late Chancellor Kent, very characteristically to a 
member of the bar, ‘‘ Do you think these ministers believe 
the Bible, as you and I believe Blackstone? I don’t be- 
lieve they do.”’ 

That language strictly applicable to not less than two be- 
ings, may be applied figuratively to but one being, without 
violence to the understanding, all know, for all so apply it. 
When one tells another, ‘‘ I said to myself so and so,’’— 
‘¢ When I was young, I made a covenant with myself,’’— 
‘¢ T have been communing intimately with myself,’’—or ‘‘ 1 
had a long struggle with myself, but I finally conquered 37” 
_—when one uses such language, strictly implying two vol- 
untary agents, nobody misapprehends it. But if he should 
affirm that cither of, those expressive statements is literally 
and philosophically true, and that there was really a com- 
munion of two intelligences, that one of them did really 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXX1 


speak to the other, or that there was, in reality, such a 
communion of distinct beings, or such a conflict of two vol- 
untary agents, the one of which mastered the other, hig so 
saying, if it did not prove him to be literally ‘‘ beside him- 
self,’ would prove him either false or insane. 

So, also, was it a natural and forcible way which Paul 
took to give instruction respecting the exercises of one and 
the same individual soul, to speak of them as the conduct of 
two distinct men, each having his own separate conscious- 
ness, understanding, and will—two distinct beings of oppo- 
site characters, in earnest conflict with each other, the one 
with a carnal mind, and the other with a spiritual mind, 
continually warring with each other, and each in turn vic- 
torious: and so well did Paul sustain the figure, as to lay 
on one all the blame of misconduct, except as he was insti- 
gated by the Evil Spirit; and to bestow on the other all 
the praise of doing well, except as he was prompted by the 
Holy Spirit. 

But there is a limit beyond which it will not do to crowd 
these bold metaphors, though they often are pushed far over 
_ that boundary into the region of the wildest and most gro- 
tesque religious fancies. The limit in one language may 
not always be the limit in another, as a literal translation 
of one sometimes has a meaning in its new form, which did 
not belong to it in the original. The translation of words 
is not always the translation of ideas. Figures of speech 
that were safe in Judea without note or comment, may be 
dangerous elsewhere without a skillful and wary interpreter. 
The genius of a language may be as peculiar in its meaning 
as in its structure. A Chinese state-paper, so rhapsodical 
when literally rendered to an English ear, may have much 
Jess flightiness at home ; and a sensible Chinese might look | 
somewhat skeptical at an Englishman, who, in regard to 
shame and surprise, should tell him by a literal version, 
that he was mortified at one time and thunderstruck at an- 


XXX A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


other, ‘¢ The Celestial Empire,’? a name that seems so 
yain and boastful, like that of ‘‘ The Sublime Porte,’’ may 

mean but little if any more where it belongs than ‘* Great 

Britain”? does here ; the term Celestial denoting, perhaps, 

only what is comparatively high—elevation, dignity, or 

greatness : and the pompous titles of the Emperor of China 

may not seem more flatulent in Europe, than the title of 
6 His Serene Highness’? denoting some petty prince, or 

than that of ‘¢ The High and Mighty Lords, the States 

General of the United Netherlands,”’ would seem to a na- 

tive of the Celestial Empire. A want of regard to, or 

knowledge of the genius of the Hebrew language has made 

sad work both with the science of theology and the charity 

of Christian churches. The luxuriant poetry of Oriental 

prophets has been trimmed into conformity with the severe 

and staid philosophy of English prose; and the idioms 

which were learned in ancient Babylon, or at the feet of 
Gamaliel, or on the rude shore of the Galilean lake, have 

been Jiteralized into the languages of modern Europe, to be 

interpreted by the letter, to the killing of the life. 

In how many instances in the Bible, is plurality repre- 
sented as unity and unity as plurality. And with what 
freedom and boldness of expression are these representations 
carried out as if literally true. And in how many instan~ 
ces are contradictions of language used to convey emphasis 
of meaning. Much of the instruction given by Christ him- 
self, though unequaled in moral expression, is antithetical, 
-enigmatical, and, if strictly construed, either mysterious or 
absurd, where the plainest and most rational truths were in- 
tended to be deeply impressed on the minds of plain, unlet- 
tered men. Examples in abundance might be cited from 
the teachings of Christ, illustrative of this statement, but I 
will refer only to John 6: 48—58. ‘I am the bread of 
ie ey The bread that I will give is my flesh, which 
I will give for the life of the world. . . «. Except ye eat 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXXlll 


the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have 
ne: life im: ows 3" For my flesh is meat indeed, and my 
blood is drink indeed. . . . He that eateth of this bread 
shall live forever.’? See the whole passage—a passage full 
of ‘* hard sayings,’’ (v. 60.) to hungry men who had come 
a weary distance by land and lake, for no other object than 
a miraculous meal of loaves and fishes. 

What if figurative language should be applied as literally 
to the disciples of Christ as it is to Christ himself? Into 
what delusions would it not carry such as should so apply 
it? Then would Christians be regarded as literally dwelling 
an God, and G'od in them, and they as being filled with all 
the fullness of G'od, so that their unity with God, he as their - 
Father and they as his divinely begotten sons, would be as 
multipersonal as the individualities so mingled and con- 
founded. : 

The representations so frequently made in the New Tes- 
tament, of the identity of the church and Christ’s body, 
and the boldness with which such statements are carried into 
detail, with specific appropriation of the constituent parts of 
his corporeal being—these numerous and definite statements 
of identity, illustrate the idiomatic genius of Jewish thought 
and language. ‘The words of the Savior to his disciples at 
the paschal supper, ‘‘ Take, eat; this is my body,’’ when 
carefully compared with and fortified by the previous words 
of Christ in John 6; 48—58, teach as plainly as words can 
teach, if literally taken, the identity of the unorganized, 
inert, passive, unleavened bread, with the visible, organized, 
animate, speaking and moving body of Jesus in whose hand 
was extended, not his other, but his identical self. This, 
says the Catholic, is a great mystery, but it is really so ; 
and while he adds, ‘‘ So the church has always understood 
‘it,”’ he curses all who will not receive literally the words of 
Christ and the words of his apostles. 

But when Paul teaches, by authority of his miraculous 


XXX1V A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


commission from the Savior, that the church is, also, Christ’s 
body, how plainly, and with what fullness, variety, and fre- 
quency of instruction does he endeavor to fix this important 
truth deep in the mind. Among the many ways in which 
he teaches the identity of the visible church with the other- 
wise invisible body of Christ, he says expressly, (1 Cor. 
12: 27.) ‘‘ Ye are the body of Christ,’? and not only so, 
but also, ‘‘ members in particular.”’ But; as if this was 
not plain enough for the incredulity of such as would sperdt- 
walize his instruction, away from its literal and true mean- 
ing, he says, (Eph. 5: 30.) ‘¢ For we are members of his 
body, of his flesh, and of his bones :”? and, to cut short the 
maiter and leave no room for cavil, the apostle adds, (v. 32, ) 
‘¢ This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ 
and the Church ;’?—as much as to say, The mysteriousness 
of Christ’s human and divine natures is so profound and un- 
searchable, that to determine its possibilities or impossibili- 
ties, against a revelation from heaven, is arrogance and pre- 
sumption which should be humbled at once into absolute and 
uninquisitive submission. 

Such might be the logic of those who would interpret se- 
lect passages of Scripture by the letter, without regard to 
their want of harmony with other passages taken as literally, 
and without regard to their flat contradiction of self-evident 
truths, Men allow themselves to be misled by the mere 
fact of a difference in the nature of objects contemplated. 
In the case of the church, men know that it is not Christ’s 
body. Their senses and their individual consciousness put 
the matter out of question ; but when they come to consider 
spiritual and invisible objects, they give a latitude or a 
straitness to language, as the case may hapen, without the 
test of the senses or of consciousness to hinder them, and so 
men are taught, with solemn admonition, to be afraid of 
reason even in its Heaven-assigned province, and in those 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. ~ XXXV 


conclusions and intuitions of the mind which are as safe a 
guide as the senses or as consciousness itself. . 

It is quite uncertain when the tripersonal controversy 
which has so long yexed Christendom will come to an end, 
though it is very certain never to stop, till the charity of 
Christians shall become broader than are their creeds. So 
long as Christian fellowship is cramped by subscription to a 
formula of faith whose terms are either unmeaning, self- 
contradictory, or defiant to common sense ; so long will men, 
who value Christ’s ordinances and do not undervalue their 
own reason or the right of private judgment in matters of 
faith, be impatient of such trammels and be earnest to cast 
them off. How much self-darkening, how much hypocrisy, 
how much skepticism, how much strife, how much con- 
tempt for the church and for religion itself, have the Nicene 
and Athanasian Creeds, with their countless creedlings, been 
responsible for, since the way of Christ and his apostles was 
abandoned for those idols of man’s device. 

There are three things which would help the church most 
blessedly, if technical and scholastic lords over God’s heri- 
tage would allow their subjects a breathing-spell for the ex- 
periment,—viz., reading the Bible with their own eyes, by 
its own light ;—allowing every one to conform his creed to 
the Bible, instead of compelling all to adjust the Bible to 
a creed ;—and restoring, in their spurit, the simple, compre- 
hensive conditions of discipleship and terms of communion 
which Christ made broad, and his apostles never narrowed. 
To fear that the gospel will go to wreck with the anchor 
which Christ provided for it, and by which it rode out the 
wild storms of the apostolic age, is want of confidence in 
the power of truth and the wisdom of its great Teacher. 
_ Shall all other truth be most energetic ang,most beneficent 
to human interests, when left free ; and that which concerns 
man’s highest welfare be weak, except in bondage? Never 


os 


XXXVI A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


will the gospel be so mighty to save, as when its great power 
shall work unembarrassed by human restraints. 

But I must bring this long letter to a close. Had I sus- 
pected the length to which your book would have drawn it, 
I should hardly have had courage to begin. I know not how 
I can so well end it as by two remarkable lessons of candor, 
reflection and foresight, from John Robinson and Jonathan 
Edwards—that of the latter, a Resolution for himself ; and 
that of the former, his parting Advice to the Pilgrim Church. 
—‘* Resolved, that should I live to years, I will be impar- 
tial to hear the reasons of all pretended discoveries, and re- 
ceive them if rational, how long soever I have been used to 
another way of thinking.’’—When Edwards, in his twentieth 
year, wrote that resolution, he made an unconscious record 
of his greatness. Had he lived long enough to keep so dif- 
ficult a resolution, perhaps it would have been kept; and 
more probably by him than by any other man. Your book 
must hope for influence with those comparatively young; as 
there is no harder current to be resisted than that of the 
mind, when it has run long in any channel. 

Said Robinson, with the wisdom of a sage, the affection 
of a father, and the picty of a saint, to the little church at 
Leyden, about to embark for the wilds of America : 

*¢ Brethren,—We are now quickly to part from one an- 
other, and whether I may ever live to see your faces on 
earth any more, the God of heaven only knows; but whether 
the Lord has appointed that or no, I charge you before God 
and his blessed angels, that you follow me no farther than 
you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ. 

‘Tf God reveal anything to you, by any other instru- 
ment of his, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to 
receive any trut by my ministry ; for I am verily persua- 
ded, the Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of his 
holy word. For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the 
condition of the reformed churches, who are come to a pe- 


LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXXVil 


riod in religion, and will go at present no farther than the 
instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be 
drawn to go beyond what Luther saw ; whatever part of his 
will our God has revealed to Calvin, they will rather die 
than embrace it: and the Calvinists, you see, stick fast 
where they were left by that great man of God, who yet 
saw not all things. 

‘‘ This is @ misery much to be lamented ; for though they 
were burning and shining lights in their times, yet they pen- 
etrated not into the whole counsel of God, but were they 
now living, would be as willing to embrace further light as 
that which they first received. I beseech you remember, 
it is an article of your church covenant, that you be ready 
to receive whatever truth shall be made known to you from 
the written word of God. Remember that, and every 
other article of your sacred covenant. But I must 
here withal exhort you to take heed what you receive as 
truth, examine it, consider it, and compare it with other 
scriptures of truth, before you receive it; for it is not pos- 
sille the Christian world showld come so lately out of such 
thick anti-christian darkness, and that perfection of knowl- 
edge should break forth at once.??* 

With abundant good will to yourself, and much to spare 
for your readers, I subscribe myself 

Respectfully, Yours, 


* Neal's Hist. Purit. Boston, 1817, p. 146. 


A 


cerha se ea 
Jeet Wie, 


EA 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


CHAP ER Rirr. 


GOD REVEALED AS THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE 
HOLY GHOST. 


We know nothing of God, except as he has revealed 
himself to us in his works and in his word. This reve- 
lation has respect chiefly to the character and cedhdition 
of man as a rebel against God’s government, and to the 
work of his redemption. God has also given us some 
intimations respecting the revelation he hag made of 
himself to those intelligent beings who stand connected 
with man, as seeking his ruin or ministering to hig sal- 
vation ; and in respect to their character, condition and 
destiny. Otherwise, we know not in what aspects and 
relations he may have revealed himself to his subjects 
in other parts of his empire; nor is it necessary that 
we should know. Of God unrevealed—God in the 
abstract, we know nothing. aes 

In revealing himself to man, God has used various 

1 


18 A BIBLICAL TRINITY- 


appellative terms to designate himself, expressive of 
different attributes, or’ different capacities in which he 
acts toward men, or different -relations which he sus- 


tains to them. These terms are proper names of God, . 


used on all occasions to designate the Supreme Being, 
or having reference to particular occasions or classes of 
his actions, and presenting him to us in different aspects 
and relations. Thus, he is called Lord, Jehovah, a 
Judge, a Savior, a Sun, a Shield, a Rock, and the like. 

So likewise, the only living and true God has re- 
vealed himself to us as the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost, with specific reference to the work of 
man’s redemption. ‘The texts in which all these terms 
are mentioned in connection, are only three. The first 
+3 in Matt. 28 : 19—“‘ Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”? The second 
‘3 in 2 Cor. 18: 14—‘* The grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the 


Holy Ghost, be with you all? The third is in 1 John 


5 : '7—‘¢ For there are three that bear record in hea- 
yen, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.”? In 
the first of these passages, these names stand in what 
some have denominated “ the order of subsistence ;”’ 
though, it would seem, without any good reason for 
such a metaphysical theory. This passage is a com- 
mand requiring us to proclaim to the whole world the 
truths which the Bible reveals respecting the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and to introduce into the 
visible church such as appear cordially to receive these 


ee eS ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 19 


truths ; which are the sum and substance of the Gos- 
pel. The second passage presents these names in a 
different order; putting the Lord Jesus Christ, or the 
Son, in the first place in the series. It contains an 
aspiration to God, that all the blessings which he can 
bestow on man through the redemption which is in 
Christ Jesus, may rest on all those in whose behalf 
they are invoked. And it seems to teach us, that it is 
proper to address God in prayer, either as the Father, 
the Son, or the Holy Spirit. The third passage men- 
tioned above, as an eminent biblical scholar has justly 
remarked, “if not proved to be spurious, is at least 
thrown into a state so doubtful, that no considerate 
inquirer would at present think of appealing to it as 
authority.’?* 

But though these three terms are not elsewhere men- 
tioned in connection, each one is so used by itself, as 
plainly to designate the true God. The passages in 
which they are found, reveal God in a three-fold capa- 
city, and in a three-fold relation to. men, with special 
reference to the work of redemption. ‘This is, pre- 
eminently, the aspect of the Godhead as revealed and 
presented to us in the Scriptures. 

Here it may be well to remark, that the word capa- 
city is used, as the best which occurs, to express the 
thought intended to be communicated. The word 
office does not express it. Character comes nearer to 
it, and may sometimes be used for the sake of variety. 


* Stuart on the Hebrews, Ist ed., vol. il. p. 315. 


20 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


~ We mean by the word, what is meant when it is said 
of a man, that he acts in a private capacity; or, in a 
public capacity. More strictly, the meaning is that 
of the phrase—he acted as a private individual; or 
as a public officer. So Prof. Stuart says of Christ, 
that ‘Sit is in his mediatorial capacity that he acts 
as judge.’’* In this sense the word is used, when we 
speak of God as acting in different capacities. 

Accordingly, it is proposed to consider briefly the 
view which the Bible gives us of the Godhead, as desig- 
_ nated by the terms, the Father, the Son, and the. Holy 
Spirit. We do not purpose to set forth the inventions 
of metaphysical philosophy for Divine verity, as to the 
internal nature of the Supreme Being, in order to re- 
move apparent difficulties involved in what the Bible 
reveals to us of God, or to strengthen the evidence of 
his own testimony in the case,—for it adds nothing, ~ 
either as elucidation or as evidence,—but to confine 
ourselves to what is deemed the Scriptural view of 
God, as developed by his attributes, and in his rela- 
tions to us and the creation around us $ or, 


Tur GopHEAD AS REVEALED TO MAN. 
‘I. God has revealed himself as the Father. 
The term is obviously taken from a well-known rela- 


tion among men, and as applied to God, approximates 


* Miscellanies, p. 124. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 21 


in its meaning to what is denoted by this term, in that 
human relation. 

1. The term Father as applied to God, has refer- _ 
ence to the origin of the human race, and designates 
him as the Author of thewr being. He was the original 
contriver, who formed the purpose of man’s existence — 
and created him in his own image—an intelligent, moral 
and immortal being, qualified to exercise a subordinate 
dominion over the inferior creation. Then God gaye 
him that dominion. | 

In like manner, the same term is s applied to fee m 
reference to his beloved Son, the man Christ Jesus. 
God was his Father. His conception was the result of 
@ supernatural Divine agency; ‘‘ therefore also that 
holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called 
the Son of God.??—Luke 1 : 35. Then, God sent him 
forth among men as the Messiah, the Anointed of the 
Father, the Savior of the world. In this relation to 
God,— including other particulars yet to be noticed,— 
he was, according to Hebraistic idiom, “ the only be- 
gotten of the Father ;’’ that is, beloved and favored of 
_ God preéminently, as no other creature ever was. 

He is likewise, in a peculiar sense, the Father of 
his spiritual children; who have been renewed and 
sanctified by his word and Spirit. He is the Author 
of their spiritual life. In these several particulars, 
differing circumstantially but similar in the most im- 
portant respect—Divine authorship—God is appropri- 
ately denominated the Father. 

2. He is so denominated, in reference to his provi- 


oD A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


dential care of those whom he has created. He sustains 
them in being, with all their powers and susceptibili- 
ties, provides for the supply of their temporal wants, 
and exercises over them the needful providential care 
during the whole of their lives. All this. providential 
care and kindness are necessary to their comfort and 
preservation ; and in thus manifesting himself to men, 
he is their Father; that is, he acts in the capacity and 
relation of Father. 

8. He is the Father of all men, inasmuch as he is 
their supreme Moral Governor. As a human father 
rightfully exercises moral government over his children, 
imparts to them his counsels and commands for the 
regulation of their conduct, disciplines them and admin-. 
isters to them variously, according to his views of their 
wants, dangers, duties, and deserts; so God, as the 
Father of the human race and of all intelligent crea- 
tures, is their supreme and rightful Moral Governor. 
Him they are bound to obey, and to him they are 
accountable for all their conduct. Acting in this capa- 
city, God gave a law to man for the regulation of his 
conduct, requiring certain things and forbidding others, 
on pain of his displeasure. If perfectly obedient to 
the law, men would have sustained to him the relation 
of loyal subjects, or obedient children, and been made 
perfectly happy. But man apostatized from God, and 
thus became a rebel, justly exposed to suffer the full 
penalty of -the violated law. On the occurrence of this 
event, God was bound by the rectitude of his character 
as Moral Governor, to maintain the authority of his 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 93 


violated law, and, 50 doing, in the regular course of 
moral administration, to execute the penalty upon trans- 
gressors. 

A. Foreseeing eternally, that the result of man’s pro- 
bation while under law, would be, his fall and utter 
ruin; God acted in the capacity and with the compas- 
sion of a Father, in his purpose and provision for the — 
salvation of our race. Out of his great love to them — 
in their rebellion, he devised a way to effect their 
reconciliation to him, so as to reclaim them and make 
them happy without doing injury to his great kingdom. 
‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only 
begotten Son.”—John 3:16. “That he might be 
just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.” 
—Rom. 3: 26. ‘“ According to the eternal purpose 
which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”’— 
Eph. 3:11. This plan of mercy which God devised 
in eternity, he, when the occasion for its execution 
occurred, introduced into his moral government ; which 
how became, in respect to man, a government of proba- 
tion, with a system of means and agencies appropriate 
to this peculiar and gracious administration; and he 
is still carrying it forward to its completion. Accord- 


ingly, 


II. In the execution of his purpose to redeem man, 
the true and eternal God manifested himself in the 
flesh. In veference to this manifestation of himself for 
the purpose in question, the one God is denominated 
the Logos—the Revealer of the Godhead, who commu- 


24 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


nicated with men in various ways on the subject of their 
salvation. The person thus manifested in the flesh, is 
called the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of man, 
Jesus Christ, ‘‘ who is God over all, blessed forever.”’ 
—Rom. 9: 5. 

It would seem that the manifestation of the Godhead 
by the Logos in the work of creation, was made with 
special reference to the development of the Divine 
attributes in the work of man’s redemption. It is said 
not only of the Logos, that ‘‘ all things were made by 
him; and without him was not anything made’ that was 
made ;”? but also of Christ the Son of God, that “‘ by 
him were all things created, that are in heaven, and 
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be 
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all 
things were created by him and for him: and he is 
before all things, and by him all things consist.’’—Col. 
1:16,17. “ By him (e» avr) were all things cre- 
ated’’—by him as the Logos—as God who, when 
Christ was on earth, dwelt in him ; which will be 
more particularly noticed hereafter. ‘‘ All things were 
created by him.’’—(di atrév.) These two expressions 
may both denote the same thing, and refer to him as 
the efficient cause—as the Logos. But the change of 
the proposition, (e” into dre,) in the latter clause of the 
same verse, seems to render it susceptible of a different 
meaning : ‘ All things were created on his account and 
in reference to his work, as Messiah.’’ And whether 
the latter interpretation should not be given in both 
cases, will admit of a serious question ; for, the fact 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 95 


that creation was performed with that reference, seems 
to be clearly revealed. They were also created “for 
him ”’—for his glory—for the manifestation of the 
Divine perfections before the universe, in the work of 
redemption. ‘ And he is before all things,’’—an addi- 
tional circumstance, having reference to his Divine 
nature ;—“‘and by him (ev atre) all things consist”’—by 
him as God ; or, on his account as Messiah, all things 
have their being. These repetitions of thought, as 
Calvin says of Rom. 5 : 19, are “not tautology, but a 
necessary explanation of the preceding sentence.” 

Richard Watson says, in his Theological Institutes : 
(p. 163.) “ Who seeks the explication of natural phe- 
nomena in theological doctrines? But there is one 
view, in which even right views of the facts of nature 
depend upon proper views of the Godhead. All nature 
has a theological reason and a theological end.” But 
more of this hereafter. 

In Eph. 3 : 9-11, it is declared, that “God created 
all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent, that now unto 
principalities and powers in heavenly places might be 
known by the church, the manifold wisdom of God, 
according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in 
Christ Jesus our Lord.”? “God created all things by 
Jesus Christ ;?’ (5xé,) on his account—with reference to 
him and his work as Messiah—an interpretation which 
will presently be further illustrated. For what end 
was this work performed? “To the intent,”? fa, so 
that—to the end that. “ The sense is, that it was with 


this design, or that this was the purpose for which all 
2 . 


—_ 


26 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


things were made.’? (Barnes.) It was to become 
known by means of the church, purchased with the 
Redeemer’s blood; through the mercy and grace of 
God manifested in the redemption of man; by the 
means here employed for the actual recovery of his 
people from the ruins of the fall, and the salvation of 
the redeemed. Especially was this world created as 
the theater on which these transactions were to take 
place—where the Logos was to become incarnate— 
where the Son of God was to suffer and die, and to 
exhibit the wonders of redeeming love; and where the 
greatly diversified wisdom of God was to be set forth 
and made known to the universe. All that he has 
done, is doing, and is yet to do in this whole matter, is 
sn accordance with his eternal purpose which he formed 
*n Christ Jesus our Lord. And what is more worthy 
to be done, what more important in itself and to the 
universe, what more glorious to God, than the work of 
redemption by Jesus Christ? Why, then, should not 
God have had this in view as one great end, for which, 
according to his own declaration, he created the uni- 
verse? Why should it not have been done on account 
of Christ as our Redeemer, and with reference to his 
work for the salvation of men? What better reason 
can be given—what more glorious. end could the great 
Creator have proposed, in his great plan? 

So likewise, the passage in Heb. 1 : 2, considered an 
connection with the general subject on which the writer 
is just entering,—the Messiah and his appropriate 
work,—seems to have its meaning very distinctly 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. | oF 


marked. Speaking of the Son, the apostle says, “ By 
whom also, he (God) made the worlds.” By whom, 
(dt 05) on whose account as Messiah—denoting the rea- 
son of the thing affirmed. This is sometimes the sense 
of the preposition dé, as in the following passages : 
Rom. 4 : 25—“* Who was delivered for (d«4, on account 
of) our offenses, and was raised again for (Océ, on ac- 
count of—for the sake of) our justification.” Rom. 
5: 19—“ For as by (dé, on account of) one man’s 
disobedience many were made sinners, so by (dé, on 
account of) the obedience of one shall many be made 
righteous.”? In the preceding verse, the same word is 
twice used in a similar sense. Rom. 8 : 3—“ For 
what the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
(5:4, on account of) the flesh.”? Rom. 14: 14—“] 
know and am persuaded by the Lord J esus, that there 
is nothing unclean of itself ;?? 01 abtov, on its own ac- 
count—for its own sake. The same preposition has a 
similar sense in other passages. And though its mean- 
ing has been claimed to be the occasion, yet it mani- 
festly denotes the reason of the thing spoken of, 
amounting to final cause, or ‘end. As other passages 
of Scripture teach us plainly, that in the work of crea- 
tion specific reference was had to the work of redemp- 
tion as one great end for which it was performed ; the 
meaning of the declaration, “by whom also he made 
the worlds,”’ fairly and naturally appears to be this : 
that “ God created the universe with special (we do not 
say exclusive) reference to the developments to be made 
of the Godhead in the work of redemption through the 


28 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Messiah.”? This was the final cause*—a most im- 


portant end, or reason—for which God made the 
worlds. | | 

But it has been said that the above sense ‘‘ put upon 
dé cannot be defended by any examples sufficiently 
plain, and cogent enough to justify the admission of 
it? We do not, however, depend chiefly on any 
alleged general meaning of that preposition. Yet on a 
subject so entirely peculiar, as the one before us,—so 
unlike anything in common life or in heathen fable,— 
it is to be expected that language will be used m a 
sense. somewhat peculiar. But as Prof. Stuart says 
of the same preposition in one of the passages quoted 
above, (Rom. 5 : 19,) “We cannot here lay any 
stress on the preposition itself as denoting either for 
or against the usual idea of imputation, in the verse 
before us,’? but “ must come to the examination of the 
general nature of the whole phrase, [and we may add, 
what is elsewhere revealed on the same subject,| im 
order to get the satisfaction which is required ;’? so we 
say of the same preposition in Heb. 1 : 2,—we must 
examine ‘the general nature of the whole phrase,”’ in 


connection with the general nature of the subject which 


the apostle is discussing, and also, what is elsewhere 
revealed respecting God, the Messiah, and the works 
of creation and redemption. 

One word here, on the use of prepositions. Their 
meaning (as also that of other words) in a given case, 


* Since penning the above view of this passage, we notice that a 
similar interpretation is ascribed to Grotius. 


en Ts 


em re ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 29 


is to be explained, and modificd if need be, by the 
general scope of the subject under discussion, or the 
nature of the case. Very different prepositions, and 
even those of opposite meanings, are used in Greek or 
English, or both, when the meaning of the phrase in 
both cases is the same. The meaning of these little. 
words is often determined almost wholly by the connec- 
tion in which they stand; and they frequently run 
into each other, in some of their meanings. In Rom. 
3: 30, it is said; “Seeing it is one God, who shall 
justify the circumcision (@* wiotews) by faith, and the 
uncircumeision (dué 27s mlotews) through faith 3”? .both 
meaning exactly.the same thing. In Rom. 2 : 12, the 
preposition «y—2n, is used for under: “ Ags many as 
have sinned in the law?’—ev, under the law. The 
_ same thought, in Gal. 4: 4, 5, is twice expressed by 
-umo—under ; “made under the law, to redeem them 
that were under the law.’? So we say of some man: : 
‘he did thus wnder these circumstances; or, he did 
thus in these circumstances.” “He said this upon 
oath 5 or, he said this under oath??—words of opposite 
raeaine: Now, if any one should attempt to build up 

theory growing out of the different and even opposite 
meanings of these prepositions, no one would be much 
the wiser for it. Too much dependence may be placed 
on the common meaning of a preposition, to the arbi- 
trary neglect of the general nature of the subject, or 
of the phrase, where it is found. Prof. Stuart says* 


* On the Hebrews. YV., ii. p. 813, Ist. ed. semper, 


30 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


of the preposition (5:4) in the verse before us, in refer- 
ence to the cause of creation, ‘‘ whether principal or 
instrumental,’’—“ it is evident that nothing of impor- 
tance can depend, either in respect to Heb. 1: 2, or 
Eph. 3: 9, on the word d.” With this statement 
we feel perfectly satisfied. But if true, is any one 
competent to affirm that this preposition, in the verse 
before us, cannot denote the final cause, or end, for 
which God made the worlds? Who that duly considers 
the general scope of this part of the epistle, will ven- 
ture to take such ground? We do not say there is no 
difficulty connected with the interpretation above given 
of this passage; but is there no difficulty in giving it 
such a meaning as presents two truly distinct and yet 
united Divine Agents in the work of creation,—the 
Father as the original, actual, and efficient Author of 
the work, creating the worlds by his Son as the princi- 
pal, real, and efficient Agent in the same? The diffi- - 
culty with the latter interpretation, is immeasurably 
greater than with the former. 

But as before remarked, our chief dependence is not 
on the meaning of that preposition. We think the pas- 
sage should have the interpretation given to it above, 
particularly on account of the general scope of the 
writer ; whose object evidently is, to treat of the char- 
acter, office, and work of the Messiah, the Son of God 
and Savior of the world ; a fact worthy of particular 
attention. ‘‘ God who at sundry times and in divers 
manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 81 


his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by 
whom also he made the worlds.”? ‘Spoken by hig 
Son,”’ does not designate him as the Supreme God, but 
as the Messiah, in his proper office and work as such. 
His being “ appointed heir of all things,”? cannot refer 
to him in his proper Divinity as the Logos, but ag the 
Messiah, or Son of God; “ by whom also—on whose 
account—he made the worlds.”? The apostle goes on 
to speak of him; (v. 3.) “‘ who, being the brightness of 
his glory, and the express image of his person?—a 
form of expression similar to that in Col. 1:15; 
‘who, (Christ) in his human nature, is the visible 
image of the invisible God.’’—(Bloomfield.) Having 
“thus referred to the Godhead that dwelt in Christ, the 
apostle speaks of him as “upholding all things by the 
word of his power ;”’ and then at once speaks of him again 
as the Messiah; who, ‘‘ when he had by himself purged 
our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on 
high.”’? The sacred writer continues to speak of his 
character and office as Messiah—superior to the angels 
and greatly exalted above them, because he is the Son 
of God. (vs. 4-6.) “Let all the angels of God wor- 
ship him.’? “It is argued, indeed, that, because 
Christ is called the Son, he is higher than the angels, 
and worthy of their worship; that is, of their homage 
and reverence, as their superior and Lord; just as a 
king is entitled to the homage and reverence. of his 
subjects: for so the word zgocxvvew [worship] signifies 
in a multitude of places. But this is far from arguing 
that he is, for the same reason, God.” 


382 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


The apostle continues, in vs. 8, 9—‘‘ But unto the 
Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever : 
a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy king- 
dom. ‘Thou hast loved righteousness and hated ini- 
quity ; therefore God, even thy God hath anointed thee 
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’ ‘* Here 
the Son is addressed by the title God; but the context 
shows that it is an official title, which designates him 
as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne, and a scepter ; 
and in y. 9, he is compared with other kings, who are 
called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As 
the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the 
earth, and his superiority over them consists im this, 
that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them ; 
inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall 
be everlasting.”’* Prof. Knapp also remarks on this 
passage, (Ps. 45: 6, 7.) that “the name Elohim is 
sometimes given to earthly kings. It does not, there- 
fore, necessarily prove that the person to whom it is 
here given, must be of the Divine nature.’? So of Ps. 
110: 1, he says, “* My Lord (Messiah) is here distin- 
guished from Jehovah, and is not described as partici- 
pating in the Divine nature, but only in the Divine 
government, as far as he was constituted Messiah by 
God.?”—(Theol. p. 132.) 

Except in the three next verses (10-12), in which 
the apostle applies to Christ a passage taken from Ps. 
102 : 24, 25, addressing him as Lord, or Jehovah, and 


* Bib. Rep. Jan. 1840, p. 149. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Oey 


teaching us, as he has elsewhere done, that He who 
was manifested in the flesh as the Son of God, laid the 
foundation of the Earth—the sacred writer proceeds to 
speak of him as the Messiah, and of his appropriate 
work. ‘This is the general tenor of his remarks; with 
a view, indeed, to encourage those to whom he wrote to 
continue steadfast in the faith. We believe there are 
but ¢wo instances in the New Testament, in which it is 
declared that God created all things ‘‘ by Jesus Christ,”? 
on oy his Son.??* (Eph. 39s ¢ Hep. Dope ibis 
elsewhere said that they were created “ by the Logos,” 
or ‘‘ by Christ ;”? but not in connection with the general 
name God, as the agent. But we think it is never said 
in the Scriptures, that God created all things by the 
Logos. ‘ All things were made by him??—the Logos 
himself—as the original and efficient cause. The 
Logos, who is the true God, was the sole creator. But 
in the passage before us, Heb. 1 : 2, the creator is 
designated by the general term God. In both instances 
in which this peculiar form of expression occurs,— 
‘* God created by him,’’—the context plainly shows that 
reference is not had to Christ or to the Son of God as 
the Logos,—to him in his Divine nature,—but simply 
as the “‘ mediator between God and‘men, the man 
Christ Jesus ;’’ (1 Tim. 2: 5.) in other words, to his 
_ Messiahship. This fact should have all due influence 
on the interpretation of the two passages, where the 
expression is found. 

For the reasons mentioned above, and with all due 


deference to the opinions of that learned and able 


34 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


. critic, Bloomfield, we cannot agree with him, that the 
sense here given of the passage under consideration 
(Heb. 1 : 2) is ‘‘ inapposite ;”’ but consider it as strictly 
apposite—exactly appropriate to the subject and the 
circumstances where it is found. Much less is it: 
‘ contradictory’? to what is said in John 1:3; ‘* All 
things were made by him:’’ for he of whom this is 
said is the Logos, not the Messiah; and it is not said 
that God made all things by the Logos. Nor is it 
““ contradictory’? to 1 Cor. 8:6; ‘‘One Lord Jesus 
Christ, by whom are all things,’’—on whose account, or 
with reference to whose great work.as Messiah, all 
things have their being ;—“‘ and we by him’’—we are 
what we are as Christians, *‘ by”—through his work 
as Messiah. 

Such is the view which we are constrained to take 
of these several passages, ay the one most favored— 
nay, required by the context, and by the particular 
subject under consideration ; and as the only one which 
seems really consistent with the nature of the whole 
subject of the Godhead, as revealed in the Scriptures. 

Here is a new development of the Godhead, in the 
great work of redemption. It was not fully made and 
could not be fully understood, till the incarnation—till 
Christ appeared, suffered, died, and rose from the dead, 
and the terms of salvation were proposed and explained 
by the apostles of our Lord. But these terms were 
doubtless revealed before, with sufficient plainness to be 
understood and accepted by man; as was actually done 
by multitudes, before God was manifest in the flesh. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 85 


Then, this new development was more clearly made 
and better understood; and it is still unfolding to the 
wonder and admiration of the universe. _ 

We are taught that it was, strictly and appropriately 
speaking, the Logos—the revealer of the Godhead in 
the works of creation and redemption—who was mani- 
fested in the flesh, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. 
But then, Christ says repeatedly, that the Father 
dwelt in him, and was in him; not occasionally, as the 
Spirit of God visited the prophets; but abode perma- 
nently—“ the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the - 
work.?? Not the Father in distinction from the Logos, 
or the Holy Spirit; but simply, that God dwelt in him. 
It is elsewhere said, that ‘“‘ God was in Christ reconciling 
the world unto himself.’? So likewise, while Christ 
commonly speaks of the Divinity that was in him as 
the Father,—simply meaning God, who sustained to 
him the relation of Father,—by whose power his 
miracles were wrought; yet he elsewhere distinctly 
ascribes this work to the Holy Spirit. ‘If I cast out 
demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God 
is come nigh unto you.”? Matt. 12:28. And he 
immediately reminded his hearers, that in speaking 
against this work, they sinned “against the Holy 
Ghost.”? In Luke, the miracle is said to have been 
wrought “by the finger of God.”? So likewise, John 
the Baptist “saw the Spirit descending from heaven 
like a dove, and it abode upon him” (John 1: 32) ; 
thus designating him as the man in whom God dwelt. 
The apostle John likewise, in applying to Christ a 


~ 86 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


passage quoted from Isaiah, designates him as the 
JeHovaH of the Old Testament; who, in the fullness 
of time, “‘ was manifest in the flesh :’’ ‘‘ These things 
said Isaiah, when he saw his glory and spake of him.” 

(John 12:41. Isa. 6 : 9, 10.) ; 

Here, then, the Divinity that dwelt in Jesus is some- 
times spoken of as God, as Jehovah, as the Father, as 
the Logos, and as the Holy Spirit. It is plain, there- 
fore, that the Divinity who dwelt in Christ was not one 
distinction in the Godhead exclusive of two other dis- 
tinctions, but the whole Godhead. So the apostle Paul 
expressly declares it : ‘‘ In him dwelleth all the fullness 
of the Godhead bodily;’? (Col. 2:9.) that is, really 
—truly. 'This language is as full and explicit as could 
well be imagined. It plainly teaches us that God—the 
whole Godhead, and not one distinction only—dwelt in 
the man Christ Jesus. 

That he was-‘‘ the Son of Man’’—a true and proper . 
man, having a human body and a human soul, is as 
evident as that Peter, James, or Paul was a real and 
proper man. ‘The evidence is the same, both in kind 
and degree. Produce the evidence that John was a 
man, and this same is evidence—sin only excepted— 
that Jesus wasaman. Reject the evidence of the one, 
and on the same ground you may reject the evidence 
of the other. That Jesus was truly a man, is, there- 
fore, not a theory—any more than the reader of these 
pages is a theory—but a revealed fact; as much so, 
ag that John was a man. And there is no more diffi- 
culty in understanding how God could: dwell in the 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 87 


man Christ Jesus, with a human soul than without 
one; nor in him, more than in the Christian; who 
is a ‘temple,”? in which God ‘dwells and walks.” 
(1 Cor.3:16. 2Cor.6:16.) There is real mystery 
in this union and indwelling of the Godhead in the 
human nature of Christ; but not more than in the. 
union of soul and body in man; or in the indwelling 
of the Spirit in the Christian. They are facts, the 
mode of which is not to be explained, because not 
revealed. 

This Son of man was also the Son of God. “God 
. sent forth his Son, made of a woman,’’—formed of 
human nature,— made under the law, to redeem them 
that were under the law’? as he was. Gal. 4: 4, 5. 
As the result of a supernatural Divine agency, the 
child Jesus was conceived and born; grew up to man- 
hood; performed, by appointment of the Father, his 
mission as the Messiah; and “‘died for our sins, 
according to the Scriptures.’? He was called the Son 
of God, not on account of his supreme Divinity,—for 
‘‘his Sonship is not in his Divinity,’’—but on account 
of his miraculous conception, his resurrection from the 
dead, his office as king Messiah, and his being preemi- 
nently beloved and favored of God. More briefly ; 
“he is called the Son of man, on account of his form . 
and nature; and the Son of God, on account of the 
Divine favor shown him in the high distinction which 
he obtains.”’* Of the same import with Son-and only 


* Bib. Rep., Jan., 1840, p. 162. 


38: A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


begotten Son of God, is the phrase, “‘ who is in the 
bosom of the Father.’’—John 1:18. Observe, the lan- 
guage is not, who was in the bosom of the Father,”’ that 
is, before his incarnation, and who, when he came in the 
flesh, Jeft that bosom, as is sometimes said; for this 
language is not applied to the Logos, but to the Mes- 
siah. After “‘God sent forth his Son, made of a 
woman, made under the law,’ the language became 
very appropriate ; and it is expressive of the strongest 
friendship, attachment, intimacy, and endearment ; 
applicable to Jesus as the Son of God, or the Messiah. 

It was this Son of God that was given—that was 
sent—that was born—that agonized in the garden— 
that died upon the cross—that was raised from the 
dead—that was exalted to the right hand of God—that 
was constituted head over all things to the church. 
‘Nothing of all this can be predicated of Divinity, 
and it consequently shows that, as the Son of God, 
Jesus is a man.” 

In this man, God was manifested, and the fullness of 
the Godhead dwelt. This was the second manifestation 
and impersonation of the Godhead, in the work of man’s 
redemption. 

But that work was not yet complete. Though God 
had devised a plan for our salvation, and Christ had 
died to prepare the way for our reconciliation to him; 


* Bib. Rep. Jan. 1840, p. 151; an able article on the Sonship of 
Christ, and well worth studying. The proprietor of that work 
would render a service to the church by publishing it in a separate 
volume. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 39 


something yet remained, in order to accomplish the 
object. Man, after all the preparation that has been 
made, is still disinclined from God, and indisposed to 
return and become reconciled to him. An influence 
more than human—more than that of the truth alone 
—-is needful, in order to bring him back to God, and 
secure the end in view. 


III. Accordingly, to the regular means of moral 
administration under a government of law, God has 
superadded those peculiar Dwine operations—peculiar 
to man’s state of probation—which are needful to carry 
out his system of grace and complete the work of man’s 
salvation. ‘This agency is notexerted by him as Moral 
Governor sunply,—as the Administrator of law,—but 
in a new and peculiar capacity suited to the exigencies 
of the case. The agency in question is ascribed to the 
Hoxy Spirit. 

In the affairs of men, he who holds a certain office is 
commonly designated by some term more or less signi- 
' ficant of the duty or service to be performed; as em- 
peror, governor, legislator, advocate, judge, and the like. 
In a similar manner, as already noticed, the supreme God 
is designated by different and appropriate names, ex- 
pressive of different attributes and relations, or different 
classes of his actions. It would seem that he is de- 
nominated the Holy Spirit, not only on account of his 
invisible and spiritual nature, but also on account of 
that peculiar, spiritual, and gracious agency, variously 


40 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


exerted, which he puts forth in carrying on and carry- 
ing out the purposes of Christ’s redemption. 

The Scriptures teach us that the Holy Spirit’s 
agency is not confined to the work of individual salva- 
tion ;—which is sometimes spoken of as his only as well 
as his peculiar province ;—but, favoring and advancing 
in various ways the work of man’s redemption, it would 
seem that it extends to all things in which Divine 
agency is employed, in administering the spiritual and 
providential government of the Messiah. Unquestion- 
ably, as already noticed, this entire mundane system 1s 
managed in subserviency to the work of redemption ; and 
if so, then the question is, whether the Holy Spirit per- 
forms, as his appropriate work, all the Divine agency 
requisite in-carrying out God’s plan of mercy, or only 
a part of it; the rest bemg performed by God as moral 
governor simply,—as legal administrator,—or by God 
in Christ, i. e. the Messiah. 

The agency of the Spirit in the sanctification of men, 


is so important a part of his work, so indispensable, and 


holds so prominent a place in the Scriptures, that we 
often hear it spoken of as if it comprehended the whole 
of his agency. But the Bible ascribes to the Holy 
Spirit an agency far more extensive than what apper- 
tains to the conversion and subsequent sanctification of 
men, and therefore favors the idea of his universal 
agency—wherever Divine agency is exerted in the work 
of redemption, especially when favoring God’s people 
and kingdom—during the whole period of this world’s 


al a 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. oe Re 


probation; whether the agent is designated by the 
name God, Jehovah, God the Father, Holy Spirit, or 
Spirit of God. In one instance, Jude 1, Christians are 
said to be ‘‘ sanctified. by God the Father.”? The 
meaning may be, that theig sanctification is the result 
of his plan of mercy by Jesus Christ. Surely it cannot 
be, that the Father, in distinction from the Spirit, is 
the sanctifier of men; but it would seem that the term 
is here used, as it sometimes is elsewhere, as a proper 
name, designating the true God—the Divine agent in 
the work of sanctification. Not only in the Old Testa- 
ment, but in the New, the distinctive appellation, Holy 
Spirit, is not always employed; it being deemed suf- 
ficient that the agency in such.case, be ascribed to the 
supreme God. Where it is important to be known, 
the nature of the subject ttself is a sufficient indication, 
in what capacity the Divine agent speaks, or acts ; if 
that common sense which God has given to man, is 
allowed to be the interpreter. Thus, Christians are 
often said to be “children of God,’? and “ born of 
God,’ when the Divine agent in their regeneration, is 
the Holy Spirit. They are elsewhere said to be “* born 
of the Spirit ;?? yet they are not on that account called 
children of the Spirit, but “children of God.” So 
likewise, on account of the agency ascribed to “ the 
Holy Ghost,”? in Luke 1 : 35, it was said to Mary the 
mother of Jesus ; ‘‘ therefore also that holy thing which 
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” 
The nature of the subject commonly shows in what 
sense the name is to be taken, when the agent is called 


42, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


God, or the Father, or Jehovah, and not the Holy 
Spirit. 

This general view of the Spirit’s agency is very much 
in accordance with the views expressed by Prof. 
Knapp,* on the same subject. He says, ‘‘ Through- 
out the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of 
God, is represented as having an agency, sometimes 


mediate and sometimes immediate, in everything which - 


is done ; and to it everything great and eleyated— 
knowledge, talents, discoveries, arts, great actions, 
good governments, exemplary virtue and piety, &c., are 
uniformly ascribed. | 

‘* The same mode of expression and representation is 
adopted in the New Testament, and was common among 
the first Christians.”? :.°. . 4.5... Some of these 


‘‘ were distinguished from the rest by eminent abilities, _ 


talents, UCs keene A te Now all these various gifts, 
abilities, and talents of whatever sort, by which such 
persons became useful to the church, were ascribed to 
the Holy Spirit, derived and named from him; for in 
these various endowments the agency of this Divine 
codperating power was unusually conspicuous. These 
extraordinary qualifications are commonly called mira- 
culous gifts—the gift of teaching, of tongues, of heal- 
ng, of working miracles, &c.—all of which promoted 
the glory and advancement of Christianity.”? This 
is exactly in accordance with the general view which 
has been taken of the Spirit’s agency. | 


* Theology, p. 141, 2d Am. ed. 


ee ee eee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 43 


Prof. Knapp does not, in these remarks, refer par- 
ticularly to any passages in the Old Testament ; appa- 
rently for the reason that they are so numerous and the 
truths he presents are so apparent on the sacred page, 
that he did not deem it necessary. However that may 
be, we shall refer to a few passages. 

There are many passages which speak of extraordinary 
wisdom or skill imparted to men by the Spirit of Jeho- 
vah, to qualify them the better for services ¢0 be per- 
formed for his worship and the benefit of his kingdom, 
and for the government and defense of his people. In 
Exodus 81: 1-11, it is said, “ Jehovah spake - unto 
Moses,”’?—but he who spake to ancient saints and pro- 
phets, was the Holy Spirit,—‘‘ saying, I have filled 
him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and 


in understanding, and in all knowledge, and in all man- _ 


ner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, to work 
in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of 
stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work 
in all manner of workmanship.’? ‘‘ And in the hearts 
of all that are wise-hearted I have put wisdom, that 
they may make all that I have commanded thee.” 
Among those “that were wise-hearted,” and who 
shared in the wisdom thus given them, were “all the 
women that did spin with their hands.”’—(85 : 26.) 
Substantially the same thing is repeated in ch. 35: 
30-35, and several other places. Here then, extra- 
ordinary skill in workmanship, secwlar in itself, but 
performed for the service of pebigion;, 1s ascribed to the 
agency of the Holy Spirit. 


‘ 


44. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Passing over other instances of the kind, a similar 
Divine agency—or rather, one suited to the exigencies 
of the case—is spoken of in reference to the judges 
that ruled over Israel. In Jud. 3:10, it is said: 
*¢ And the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him (Othniel 
the son of Kenaz), and he judged Israel and he went 
out to war, and Jehovah delivered Chushan-rishathaim 
king of Mesopotamia into his hand.’? So, in 6: 84; 
“The Spirit of Jehovah came upon Gideon, and he 
blew a trumpet.’’ Here the Spirit of Jehovah is 
spoken of as stirring men up to fight in behalf of his 
church and people, and giving them the victory over 
their enemies. In like manner, in 2 Chron. 20: 14—- 
19, when three heathen tribes came out to fight against 
the king of Judah; “the Spirit of God came upon”? 
certain men, who said to all the people, ‘‘ Be not afraid 
nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for 
the battle is not yours, but God’s.”? The result was, 
*‘ they were smitten.””—(v. 22.) God’s people were 
victorious. In such cases, his interposing agency is 
gracious toward his people—favoring his church, 
though unfavorable toward her enemies, in their wicked 
courses. Moreover, God’s agency in his judgments 
among men, was often a manifestation or vindication 
of his holiness, justice, and supremacy—all tending to 
advance his kingdom and promote its welfare. 

In that Divine agency which was employed for the 
benefit of his ancient people, God often acted in that — 
peculiar relation which he sustained to them. Jehovah 
was temporal Head of the Hebrew Commonwealth— 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 45 


King over his people Israel. Moses, Joshua, the 
judges, and the kings who were afterward anomted or 
set apart by God, were his vicegerents, and acted by 
his authority and according to his instructions; unless 
they revolted from him. In a subordinate sense, they 
were ‘ gods’’—acting under him, the supreme God. 

Solomon was called the son of God,—‘‘ my son,”’— 
on whom God bestowed peculiar favor. When he 
entered upon his duties as king of Israel, feeling his 
need of higher qualifications than he possessed, he 
prayed earnestly that God would bestow upon him a 
superior measure of wisdom; such as he needed. His 
request was granted in answer to prayer.—(1 Kings 3 : 
6-13.) It was a special gift; and the fact that it was 
bestowed upon him as God’s vicegerent in the kingdom, 
does not prevent it from being properly regarded as the 
gift of the Holy Spirit. 

In the Old Testament, it is said, in unnumbered 
instances ; ‘‘ Jehovah spake to me ;”’ “¢ Jehovah said 5” 
“the word of Jehovah came to me,’’—declaring what 
He, who spake to the prophet, would do im the case. 
Doubtless we are to understand the speaker and the 
agent to be the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God. This is 
not theory; because “holy men of old spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost.” So the Spirit of 
Jehovah is said to come upon men; and Jehovah 
inclined the hearts of heathen kings to favor his people 

in external matters,—as the return from the captivity, 
the removal of obstacles out of their way, the rebuilding 
of the temple, and the reéstablishment of the temple 


46 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


worship in Jerusalem. Yet these providential events 
were effected, “not by might, nor by power, but by my 
Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts.”,—Zech. 4:6, 7. 
Also, Ezra 1: 1-6; 6:22; 7 : 21-28. .. Even the 
necessary skill for rightly conducting the operations of 
husbandry, are referred to Divine inspiration. ‘ For 
his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach 
him.’’—Isa. 28 : 23-26. That the Divine agency in 
this matter was not gracious, and had no connection 
with the prosperity of God’s people and kingdom, those 
may affirm who choose to do so.. It is well known that 
he promised his people, if obedient, temporal prosperity 5. 
‘and such prosperity was then, an important method of 
showing his favor and of expressing his approbation. 

In the Old Testament, as well as in the New, the 
God who is spoken of as supreme ruler, during the 
period of this world’s probation, is Jehovah the Logos, 
who was manifest in the flesh. During this whole 
period, the government of God is administered with . 
reference to the work of Christ’s mediation. We sup- 
pose this is what is properly meant when it is said, that 
‘Christ is the God of the Old Testament.’? The 
Messiah reigns. But that gracious agency which is 
employed in carrying out the Divine purposes relative 
to his kingdom, is to be referred to the Holy Spirit. 

To give a summary view of the subject,—though 
some of the particulars yet remain to be noticed,— 
the Holy Spirit’s agency is recognized, first, in the 
conviction, conversion, and subsequent sanctification of 
men. Secondly, in the miracles wrought by Christ 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 47 


and his apostles. Thirdly, in the miraculous concep- 
tion and resurrection of Jesus. Fourthly, m the 

inspiration of ancient saints and prophets, and of the | 
apostles and first teachers of Christianity. Fifthly, 
in the exercise of a special providential care over his 
ancient people—instructing and admonishing them, 
chastising them for their sins, bringing them out of | 
captivity, punishing the enemies of his church for 
oppressing and warring against her ; and thus teaching 
them and others a lesson for the future. Sizxthly, in 
imparting extraordinary wisdom to various persons for 
religious purposes, and extraordinary spiritual gifts to 
many of the early Christians.—Here it may be proper 
to add, that in such passages as those which speak of 
the first Christians as “ filled with the Holy Ghost,”’ 
and “‘ full of the Holy Ghost,’—(Acts 2:4. 4:8. 
bres dpeOare Ot Don. 28 bi et t1 e ote ere 
51.) we believe it will be found, on careful examination, 
that special reference is generally had to those extraor- 
dinary endowments—for knowledge, teaching, and act- 
ing—which were bestowed upon them, as important and 
necessary qualifications, in their circumstances, for the 
successful introduction of Christianity, its firm estab- 
lishment, and its greatest success in the world. They 
seem to have this meaning, rather than to refer to those 
gracious influences which are granted to alJ Christians 
for their sanctification, support under trials and aid in 
duty.—Seventhly, in aiding and rendering successful the 
work of evangelizing and converting the world, and in 
carefully watching over, triumphantly defending, and 


43 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


gloriously advancing the best interests of the church of 
God, down to the end of time. And jinally,—as the 
Scriptures appear to teach us,—the agency of the 
Spirit is manifest in the resurrection of the dead; 
particularly, of the righteous. Of the resurrection of 
the wicked, little comparatively is ever said. 

The Holy Spirit raised up Christ from the dead. 
Aside from the evidence of this fact, which may be 
derived from the general nature of his agency in the 
work of redemption, there are several passages which 
seem plainly to teach it. And, as an eminent biblical 
scholar has somewhere remarked, ‘‘ one plain, explicit 
declaration of God is as good as a hundred.”? The 
passages referred to are these: Rom. 1: 38,4; 8:11. 
Pb 1 i209. At elim. 3.2 166.4) ti Pete 3.2, 18-1 
Cor. 6:14. 2 Cor. 4:14. In the first of these 
passages, it is declared, that Christ was constituted the 
Son of David by the agency of human nature; and 
powerfully shown or incontestibly proved to be the Son 
of God, the Messiah, by the agency of the Holy Spirit 
in his resurrection from the dead.*  Tholuck also 
remarks, that the phrase rendered “‘ Spirit of Holi- 
ness,’’ means in this place the same as ‘‘ Holy Spirit ;”’- 
in accordance with a well known Hebraistic idiom. In 
the second passage, it is said, ‘‘ But if the Spirit of 
him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, 
etc.’ Some commentators suppose, that by “ the Spirit 
of him,”? God the Father is meant. But we think it 


* For an able exposition of this passsge, see Bib. Rep. for Jan, 
1840, by the Rev. Dr. Mayer, late of York, Penn. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 4y) 


needs no proof here, that He who “‘ dwells” in Christ- 
lans, sanctifying, aiding, and comforting them, is the 
Holy Spirit. If so, then, in order that the above inter- 
pretation may be the true one, ‘‘ the Spirit”? must mean 
the Holy Spirit ; and “ him,’ the Father in distinction 
from the Spirit—an interpretation quite too far-fetched 
and fanciful to be adopted ; for it would make the term, 
“the Spirit of him,’ denote éwo Divine agents—one, 
dwelling in the Christian; the other, raising up Jesus 
from the dead. But, by “‘the Spirit of him,’’ we are 
doubtless to understand, the Spirit of God—a common 
term for the Holy Spirit. If this is so,—and it is 
not easy to see how it can be otherwise,—then the 
Holy Spirit raised Christ from the dead. In 1 Pet. 
3: 18, it is declared that Christ was ‘ put to death by 
the flesh, (by man,) but quickened (raised to life) by the 
Spirtt.”? The two nouns (cegxi et mveduare) rendered 
flesh and Spirit, are in the dative case of the agent 
after the passive participles there used, and should both 
have been rendered by, in our translation, instead of 
one being rendered in and the other by.* Macknight 
remarks on this passage; ‘“‘ As Christ was conceived 
. ... by the Holy Spirit, (Luke 1 : 85,) so he was 
raised from the dead by the same Spirit; on which 
account he is said, 1 Tim. 8 : 16, to have been ‘ justi- 
fied by the Spirit.’ ’? On this last text, he remarks : 
“¢ Jesus having been publicly put to death as a blas- 
phemer for calling himself the Son of God, he was 


* See Bib. Rep. Jan. 1840, pp. 169, 170. 


3 


50 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


justificd—acquitted from the crime of blasphemy, 
which was imputed to him by the chief priests and 
elders—and demonstrated to be the Son of God, 
through the operation of the Spirit, who raised him 
from the dead.” ‘To these passages may be added, 
Eph. 1:19, 20; in which the same powerful agency 
which is exerted (by the Holy Spirit) in the conversion 
and sanctification of men, was put forth in the resur- 
rection of Christ from the dead. And yet, the agent 
spoken of as doing all this, (v. 17,) is called “‘ the God 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,” or 
glorious Father. 

Here it may be well to make one or two general 
remarks. The Divine agent is often designated by the 
general name God, and often too by a term denoting a 
particular relation ; when, in @ given case, the relation 
itself is not particularly referred to; the term being 
used simply as a proper name; the circumstances of the 
case deciding, if need be, in what character the Divine 
agent acts. Thus, in Jude 1, “sanctified by God the 
Father,” was not intended to teach us that the Father, 
in distinction from the Spirit, is the sanctifier of men ; 
but simply to refer the work to the agency of God. 
At the same time, the sanctifying influence here as- 
cribed to the Father, is the especial work of the Holy 
Spirit. As there is but one and the same God, though 
there are diversities of operations, he may be desig- 

~ nated by one relative term,—Father, Eph. 1: 17,—and 
immediately described as acting im another character 
and relation,—Sanctifier, v. 19,—without any change 


2 


en ae 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 51 


of name. The reason is, that the true God, who 
sustained to Christ the relation of Father, is the sanc- 
tifier of men; though in this capacity, he is more 
commonly denominated the Holy Spirit. Hence, too, 
apparently, the reason why the same act—creation or 
sanctification—is ascribed to God, sometimes under 
one name and sometimes under another; either name 
designating the true God. 

Long since the preceding paragraph was written, we 
have noticed a passage (which we here insert) in the 
writings of the beloved and venerated Evarts, in the 
near prospect of death ; the language of which is simi- 
lar to that of the apostle Paul, (Eph. 1 : 17-20,) 
referred to above: ‘“‘ While Mr. Evarts was on his 
way to Cuba, fully aware of the uncertain continuance 
of his life, he wrote as follows: ‘ Here, in this sea, I 
consecrate myself to Gop as my chief good ;—to him as 
my heavenly Father, infinitely kind and tender of his 
children ;—to him, as my kind and merciful Redeemer, 
by whose blood and merits alone I do hope for salvation ; 
—to him as the beneficent Renewer and Sanctifier of 
the saved.’ *’* 

Here, an eminent Christian in full view of death and 
ripe for heayen,—with the liveliest emotions toward 
God as the author of his salvation im the various 
departments of its work, breaks out from the fullness of 
his heart, in language exactly in accordance with that 
of the apostle just referred to, and in Acts 20: 28, 


* Allen’s Biog. and Hist. Dic., Art. Evarts Jeremiah. 


52, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


noticed in the second chapter of this work. He was 
not in a state of mind to think of metaphysical distinc- 
tions of any sort; but he poured out the overflowings 
of a devout and grateful heart toward God, calling 
“him? his Father, Redeemer, and Sanctifier—toward 
“him (God manifest in the flesh) by whose blood he 
hoped for salvation :’? his thoughts and affections sup- 
plying (as we have done, upon Acts 20 : 28,) what was 
needful in the case, without stopping for critical accu- 
racy, and having—without a thought of it—the exam- 
ple of the apostle, in two instances at least, for his mode 
of expression. But some critics are a little too apt to 
apply all their studied and philosophical accuracy to 
the popular language of the Scriptures. 

Thus it would seem that the Holy Spirit raised up 
Christ from the dead, as a part of his appropriate 
work in carrying out the purposes of redemption. And 
why is not the resurrection of the dead,—particularly 
of believers in Jesus, the true Messiah—the only and 
all-sufficient Savior of sinners,—also a part of his ap- 
propriate work ? : 

Macknight remarks on 1 Pet. 38: 18; ‘* Christ’s 
resurrection being an example as well as a proof of our 
resurrection, he was raised by the agency of the Spirit, 
perhaps to show that we shall be raised by the same 
power, exerted agreeably to the will of God and of 
Christ.2? The resurrection of the dead is sometimes 
ascribed to God, (Acts 26 : 8. 1 Cor. 6 : 14,) when it 
does not appear that the Father i is particularly intended. 
In like manner, God says; (Ezek. 36 : 265) “ A new 


eee 
ee ee ene 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 53 


heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
within you ;”? but we are not to understand this of the 
Father, rather than of the Spirit. So, ‘‘ every one 
that loveth is born of God”—not the Father, but the 
Spirit. In the same manner, when Christ says, (John 
5: 21,) “‘ As the Father raiseth up the dead, and 
quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom 
he will ;”’ he may, as he often does, use the term Father 
as a proper name of God, who sustained to him the 
relation of Father: but this is not saying, distinctively, 
whether he raises the dead as the Father, as the Son, 
or as the Holy Spirit—preparatory to the winding up 
of the scheme of redemption. In ch. 5 : 28, when he 
says, ** All that are in their graves shall hear his voice, 
and shall come forth ;’? it doubtless means, that by 
himself or by his authority,—which is one and the same 
thing,—some signal will be given, in close proximity to - 
which the dead will be raised by almighty power; and 
their resurrection will have reference to, or be on 
account of, the completion of his work as Messiah. 
In 1 Cor. 15 : 21, 22, it is said, “‘ For since by man 
came death, by man came also the resurrection of the 
dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall 
all be made alive.’ In other words, “* As it is the 
consequence, or on account of the first man’s trans- 
gression, that men die; so also, on account of the 
obedience of the man Christ Jesus, will there be a 
resurrection from the dead. For, as by means of Adam 
and his doings, all die; even so, by virtue of what 
Christ has done for the salvation of men, shall all his 


54 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


followers be raised from the dead, to immortal life.”’ 
The all here, doubtless refers to those only who will be 
saved by his atonement; the comparison being drawn 
between those connected with Adam as the father of all 
men, on the one hand ; and those connected with Christ 
as the Savior of his redeemed ones, on the other. ‘This 
is evident, both from the preceding and following verses. 
In Rom. 8: 11, it is said; ‘‘ He that raised up Christ 
from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by 
his Spirit that dwelleth in you.’? Doddridge para- 
phrases it: ‘“‘He that so powerfully and gloriously 
raised up Christ from the dead, will also, in due time, 
quicken your mortal bodies, though corrupted and con- 
sumed in the grave, by the agency of that powerful 
Spirit which now dwelleth in you, and acts to quicken 
you in the divine life.’ Schleusner also gives the 
’ Greek word here (Zworoujoer) the same sense ;* and he 
classes it with the same word in John 5: 21; 1 Cor. 
15 : 22; and in 1 Tim. 6: 183 where. it evidently 
means, to raise from the dead. Some commentators 
give the passage the sense of spiritual quickening of 
our mortal bodies, in this life; assigning as a reason, 
that the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as raising the 
dead,—the very question in debate,—which cannot, at 
the outset, be assumed. 

But ‘why should it be thought a thing incredible 
with you, that God’? the Holy Spirit ‘ should raise the 
dead ??? He igs omnipotent. He possesges al/ Divine 


* Lex. sub voce, No.8. In vitam revoco, vitam amissam restituo. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 55 


attributes, and has a peculiar and most important part 
to act in carrying out the plan of redemption. If 
whatever Divine agency is needful in carrying on and 
completing this glorious work, is to be ascribed to the 
Spirit, then the resurrection of the dead would seem to 
be within the appropriate sphere of his agency. It 
appears to be the true sense of the Scriptures, that 
“God”? the Holy Spirit “hath both raised up the 
Lord”? Jesus, “and will azso raise up us by his own 
power,”’—(1 Cor. 6 : 14); and “ that he who raised 
up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus,?— 
on account of what Jesus has done for us, and in us, 
—‘‘and shall present us with you.”’—(2 Cor. 4: 14.) 
Moreover, the work of Divine preparation for the 
winding up of the great scheme of redemption, is not 
complete, until all men are raised up and assembled 
before the judgment seat. ‘‘ God shall raise the 
dead.’’? There is clearer and more abundant evidence 
that the agent in the work in question, is the Holy 
Spirit, than that it is the Father. Still, whether it is 
God acting as supreme Moral Governor, as God in 
Christ, or as the Holy Spirit in the performance of his 
appropriate work in redemption,—that episode in God’s 
moral administration,—is, indeed, a question not of the 
very first importance 5 seeing that, in each case, it is 
the true God who does it. We may, therefore, refer 
the resurrection of the dead to any one of these, with- 
out being heretical. ‘“‘ God shall raise the dead.” 
There, at least, we may safely leave the subject. 

This third development and impersonation of the 


56 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Godhead in the work of the Holy Spirit, is peculiar to 
the system of grace adopted for the salvation of men. 
We say impersonation, because.God is personed forth 
in the work of the Holy Spirit, as he is in that of the 
Messiah and of the Father. The shade of thought 
running through the whole subject of the Spirit’s 
agency, is this; That 1r Is VARIOUSLY EXERTED, ac- 
cording to the exigencies of the case, IN ALL SUCH 
WAYS AS ARE NEEDFUL, for effectually aiding and 
perfecting the glorious work of man’s redemption. 
All such Divine agency as is peculiar to this work, the 
Scriptures seem to ascribe to the Holy Spirit. 

Thus, for the purpose of Christ’s mediation, has 
God revealed himself to man as the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit; and in each of these develop- 
ments, he is the Supreme God. 


a sai P 
ye ee 


Se a Se a ee 


OTA? Wt Ree: 


THE COMMON THEORY OF THE TRINITY CONSIDERED. 


Havine taken a brief view of the Godhead as we 
find it revealed in the Scriptures, we shall now con- 
sider the question.— Whether this view of the subject 
recognizes three Persons in the very nature of the God- 
head itself, independently of all manifestation. 

This Biblical view does not recognize the F ather, 
Son, and Holy Spirit as ‘‘ three Persons,’’ in the tech- 
‘nical sense of theological philosophy ; each one having 
his own distinct intellect, susceptibility, consciousness, 
and will—himself possessing a complete set of “ similar 
or equal attributes”? of a distinct and competent Divine 
agent ; for that is nothing less, and nothing else than 
sheer Tritheism ; whether admitted or denied; and in 
whatever manner they are considered as united together 
in one complex Being. This may be called the Trt- 
theistic form of the common theory of the Trinity. 
Nor does it recognize or deny the Monotheistic form 
of the common theory; namely: three personal, eter- 
nal, and unknown distinctions in the nature of the 
Godhead itself; each of them possessing a complete set 


of Divine attributes, common to them all. 
3* 


58 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


But the view which has been taken of the subject 
maintains, that, as it is presented in the Bible, each 
one of these—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 
—is a Person, with his own “ distinctive peculiari- 
ties ;??—not a person in the Tritheistie sense, but in 
the Biblical sense ; i.e. each one is a different Imper- 
sonation of the Godhead from the other two—a real 
Person, and yet not one and the same Person with 


either of the others; and each one, the infinite and — 


eternal Jenovan, revealing himself to man in different 
aspects and relations, for the work of redemption. 
God the Father has his distinctive peculiarities. These 
are manifest in the development which he has made of 
himself as the Father. ‘‘ God in Christ, reconciling 
the world unto himself,’ has Ais distinctive peculiari- 
ties. They are developed in what he has done and 
suffered for the salvation of men. God the Holy Spirit 
has Ais distinctive peculiarities. They are manifested 
in that gracious agency which he exerts, wherever and 
in whatever form it is needed, in carrying out the pur- 
poses of Divine grace, through the atonement of Christ. 
Whatever things are revealed as peculiar to any one of 
these Persons, constitute his “distinctive peculiarities.” 
But the Divine attributes themselves are not distinc- 
‘ tive, or peculiar. For, according to the T ritheistic 
form of the common theory, the attributes of the Father 
are ‘ similar or equal”? to those of the Son, and of the 
Spirit ; as well as “* distinct”? from them. And, ac- 
cording to the Monotheistic form of the common theory, 
they are “ numerically the same,” and therefore com- 


ee ee 


(ee ee oe 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 59 


mon to the three Persons. So, in a Biblical Trinity 
without any theory, God is represented as possessed of 
all possible perfection, manifested by the same, and not 
by three sets of Divine attributes. For, the attributes 
of the Godhead are revealed as one set of attributes, 
infinite in all respects ; not as three sets of attributes, 
“ similar or equal.’? They are peculiar only in their 
- manifestation. Omnipotence is omnipotence ; ommi- 
science is omniscience ; infinite benevolence is infinite 
benevolence,—and so of the other Divine attributes,— 
whether belonging to the Persons of the Tritheistic 
theory of the Trinity, or any other; or to the Persons 
of the simple Trinity of the Scriptures. To say that 
this Biblical view represents the Father, Son, and Holy. 
Spirit as one and the same Person, would be a mani- 
fest perversion of the language,-and of the truth. 

This view of the Trinity is not a theory, but a state- 
ment of revealed facts. God Has revealed himself as 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This as inconéro- 
vertible ract—whatever theories any may choose to 
superadd, in order to explain, reconcile, or defend the 
truths revealed. For ourselves, we prefer to hold the 
facts revealed, and stop there ; without the theories. 

But it may be said that ‘‘ the personality of the God- 
head consists in these developments, made in time, and 
made to intelligent and rational beings,’ and therefore 
cannot be ‘‘eternal.”’* Not exactly so. Develop- 
ments are not persons, or personalities. Were we to 


* Prof, Stuart in Bib. Rep., Vol. v. p. 317. 


60 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


use the word development, in the definition of person- 
ality, we should say, that the /atter consists in develop- 
ment AND the attributes of the Being who develops 
himself. Perhaps we might say, too, that the person- 
ality in question, consists in the attributes of God de- 
veloped in certain relations. But we much prefer to 
say, that we mean by Person—not development, nor 
any mode or form of development, but—the true God 
himself considered in relation to what he has done and 
is doing in the economy of redemption. To ask 
whether Person, as thus defined and used, is eternal, 
is the same as to ask, whether God is eternal. 

Person, then, is here used, not to denote that in God 
which is not revealed,—whether unknown distinctions 
or anything else,—but that which is revealed ; not the 
Being alone, nor the manifestation alone, but both 
united : namely; God revealed in different capacities 
and relations. As God without any revealed attri- 
butes, is not the God of the Bible; so, God without 
the manifestations which he has made of himself in 
redemption, is not what we mean by Person. ‘True, 
he did not develop himself as the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, before he thus developed himself; but he 
eternally possessed all those properties or attributes— 
that nature—which prompted him to make those de- 
velopments, when the occasion for them occurred in 
carrying out the Divine plan ; as, from the very nature 
of God, it was certain to occur. It has been remarked, 
“that the names themselves, Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, are names given not so much to characterize 


a 
q 


——o ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 61 


the original distinctions in the Godhead, as those by 
which the Godhead is disclosed to us in the scheme of 
redemption. These appellations may be said to spring 
from, and to be peculiarly characteristic of, redemp- 
tion.”’* This is well said, in the main. But it is 
elsewhere statedt by the same learned author, as the 
middie and proper ground between the two extremes 
on the subject of the Trinity, that ‘from eternity there 
existed that distinction in the Godhead, which was 
developed in the economy of redemption.”? Here the 
whole apparent difference between the views of this 
admirable disputant and justly venerated instructor, 
and the view which it is the object of these pages to 
present, 1s happily reduced to the compass of a nut- 
shell. N ay, more; to the use of a single word —“ dis- 
tinction ;”’ and that too, when he has elsewhere re- 
marked,t that he “‘ inclines to say that distinction must 
be attribute ; yet, as its specific nature lies beyond 
the boundaries of human knowledge, how can we feel 
very certain respecting any conclusions relative to this 
point??? Then, why not leave it where Gon has left 
it, without insisting on a certain alleged, yet unre- 
vealed, unknown “ distinction’? in the very nature of 
the Godhead itself, when it is believed to be “an attri- 
bute,”? or “something”? fully adequate to the develop- 
ments which God has made? These developments are 
fully accounted for, nay, they seem obviously and 
scripturally to result, from those attributes of the true 


* Bib. Rep., Vol. vi., pp. 103, 104. t Ibidem, p. 112. 
t Bib. Rep., Vol. vi. p. 95. : 


62 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


God which are revealed in the Bible ; without suppos- 
ing any additional * distinction’? in the very nature of 
the Godhead—unrevealed and unknown. Substitute 
the word nature for “ distinction,”? in the sentence 
quoted above, and the view presented there will be 
exactly that which it is the aim of these pages to set 
forth : ‘From eternity there existed that nature of 
the Godhead which was developed in the economy of 
redemption.”? The same writer elsewhere remarks : 
‘¢There was in the Godhead, antecedent to creation 
and redemption, something which was the foundation 
of all the developments made in the same.’? Admi- 
rably said! But who knows that this *¢ something”’ 
was some unrevealed “ distinction,” rather than the 
attributes of God already revealed ? Distinction, with- 
out any knowledge of what it may be, is an unknown 
quantity ; the value or meaning of which is yet to be 
ascertained ; and it may as well be called X, as dis- 
tinction, for aught that appears. It must be nature, 
or ‘‘ something,’’ revealed or unrevealed, which is ade- 
quate to the effect. What use is there in contending 
that it is, and ought to be called, ‘¢ distinction in the 
Godhead itself ?”’ 

But the Divine attributes of wisdom, benevolence, 
mercy, holiness, justice, power, seem fully adequate to 
all the developments which God has made of himself to 
man, without the aid of any “ distinctions”? in the God- 
head, beyond the reach of human knowledge. Indeed, 
to these very attributes, the developments in question 
seem, in the Scriptures, to be ascribed with sufficient 


= 
; 
. 
4 
F 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 68 


clearness and fullness. It was his benevolence which 
induced God to ‘‘ make the worlds,” and to create 
man in his own image and place him under a perfect 
law. His eternal love to man, led him to devise the 
plan of salvation. When man rebelled, ‘God so 
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, 
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life.”? That same love, in the specific 
form of grace,—favor to the al-deserving,~-prompted 
him, in order to complete the work he had begun, to 
** sive unto us his Holy Spirit.”? What other distinc- 
tion is necessary as a foundation for these develop- 
ments? What better foundation can there be, than 
love? When the Scriptures ascribe these several 
manifestations to the revealed attributes of God,—to 
his dove especially ; what aurHority has any unin- 
spired man, or any number of such men, to ascribe 
them to unrevealed, unknown, inferential distinctions 
in the nature of the Godhead, and to denounce that ag 
heresy, which does not say, Amen / If our minds are 
driven to the conclusion that there “‘ must be?’ some 
unrevealed ‘‘ distinction’? in the very nature of the 
Godhead, in order to account for the effects produced ; 
it may be owing to “our modes of conception, defini- 
tion, and reasoning”? on the subject, through specula- 
tion and philosophy so called, rather than to the inade- 
quateness of the revealed attributes of God, as a foun- 
dation for all the developments which he has made. 
Still, it-has been said, that ‘‘ as there was.a founda- 
tion in the Divine nature itself for creatorship and 


64 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


lordship, or God would never have been actually creator 
and lord ;’? so, there must be ‘‘ some corresponding 
property of the Godhead,” as “‘ the ground of its mani- 
festations as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’’ or there 
is “an effect without an adequate cause.” But who 
knows—who is authorized to affirm, that there must be 
in the Godhead, some unrevealed distinction “ corre- 
sponding” to these developments, other than the re- 
vealed attributes of God, in order that there may be a 
cause adequate to effect? ‘There must indeed be some 
adequate cause ; but it does not seem at all necessary 
that it should be a ‘‘ corresponding property ;”’ unless 
both words mean the same thing. Must it correspond, 
as the type corresponds to the letter on the printed 
page ; or the die to the image on the con? Here isa 
foot-print in the snow. Whose is it? One foot is 
applied, and another, and another, until one is found 
that fits it—that corresponds to it. Is this the mean- 
ing? Let us examine and see. 

‘¢ God was manifest in the flesh.’? But is there 
anything in God corresponding to the flesh? Why 
“is not his great Love to man—* for God so loved 
the world that he gave his only begotten Son,”— 
the “ corresponding property”’—the “ adequate cause”? 
of this effect,?? or manifestation? He created the 
material universe. But is there anything in God ** cor- 
responding”’ to matier ? Must we, in order to furnish 
a more full and clear revelation of God than he has seen 
fit to make, resort to another doctrine of “ correspon- 


ee ee ee re eS 


try ae ee 


rh ig 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 65 


dencies between things natural and things spiritual’’* 
—a, doctrine claiming “ distinctions’? in the internal 
nature of the Godhead, “ corresponding’”’ to the de- 
velopments he has made of himself to men? Why are 
not his wisdom, benevolence, holiness, justice, power, 
the ‘‘ corresponding, adequate cause ?’? According to 
the Scriptures, it is these attributes which make the 
foot-prints. You may there see their own impress. 
There seems to be no more necessity for affirming dis- 
tinctions in the nature of the Godhead corresponding 
to these manifestations, than for maintaining the doc- 
trine of “‘ the eternal generation of the Son,” or “ the 
eternal procession of the Spirit,”’ in order that it may 
“‘ correspond,”’ literally or quwast-literally, to certain 
Scripture expressions appertaiming to the subject. 
From such language as ‘‘ only Son,” “ only begotten 
Son,” “‘ only begotten of the Father,’’ and “ every one 
that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is be- 
gotten of him; it has been extensively maintained, 
that the Son, in his proper Divine nature, was from 
eternity truly but mysteriously begotten of the Father. 
By “ eternal generation”’ they have declared that they 
mean, ‘‘ the generation of the Divine substance of the 
Son.?? In the Nicene Creed it is; ‘‘ We believe in 
one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, be- 
gotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, from the 
nature of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, 
very God of very God, begotten, not created, haying 


* Swedenborg, 


66 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


the same substance with the Father.”’ In the Atha- 
nasian Creed we have it; ‘“‘that our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the 
substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds.” 
This mode of expression, “ the Son is eternally begotten 
of the Father,’ though not in the Scriptures, nor justi- 
fied by them, is used in the Westminster Confes- 
sion of Faith; in that adopted by the Synod at Bos- 
ton in New England, 1680; in that agreed upon at 
Saybrook, in 1708; in that of the General Assembly 
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States ; and 
in other Confessions of Faith. 

Now, nothing is plainer, than that it is incumbent 
on all persons, as well as the worthy authors and re- 
ceivers of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, to ex- 
amine the Scriptures for themselves, and to judge 
whether, according to common-sense principles of in- 
terpretation, this thing is so revealed. We believe it 
is not said in the Scriptures, that the Son was begotten 
- before the worlds, or begotten of the substance of the 
Father. The only passages which we have seen refer- 
red to as proof* of this statement, are John 1: 14, 18. 
The language thera is, “‘ the only begotten of the 
Father,” and “‘ the only begotten Son.’? These wor- 
thy fathers, nearly all of them, seem, from the very 
best intentions, to have made quite a mistake in 
their quotations, or in their interpretation of the terms. 
They have substituted the word “ eternally,’ for 


* Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Saybrook Platform, etc. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 67 


** only”’—-“ eternally begotten,”’ fer ‘* only begotten.”? 
We should like to see the proof that these two words 
are synonymous. They have quoted no other or better 
authority for the language they have used, than the 
passages referred to. Would they not have done so, 
had they possessed any better authority ? 

But there does not appear to be any occasion an 
giving to such expressions of Holy Writ, as *‘ only Son,”? 
and ‘only begotten Son of God,” a literal, a quasi- 


‘* corresponding”? sense. We do not find 


literal, or a 
them so explained or used in the Scriptures ; though 
they are so, abundantly, in the schools. In accordance 
with Hebraistic usage, we find these expressions em- 
ployed in the Scriptures, and in the writings of Jose- 
phus, in a very different manner from this. In Gen. 
22: 2,12, 16, Isaac, the second son of Abraham, is 
called his only son ; rendered in the Septuagint, beloved 
son. Soin Zech. 12:10, the phrase, ‘‘as one mourn- 
eth for an only son,’’ is rendered, “‘ as one mourneth 
for a beloved son.’? The same is true of this word, in 
Prov. 4: 38,and Amos 8:10. This Septuagint transla- 
tion was made ‘‘ by Jews who spoke the Greek language 
and were familiar with the Hebrew idiom.”’ Josephus 
uses these terms in the same sense. He calls Isaac 
the only begotten son of Abraham.—(Antiq. B. i. ch. 
13.1.) But he has more clearly expressed the sense 
in which he understood this term, in speaking of Izates, 
the son of Monobazus, king of Adiabene. ‘“* He (Mono- 
bazus the king) had indeed Monobazus, his (Izates’) 
elder brother, by Helena also, as he had other sons by 


68 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


other wives besides. Yet did he openly place all his 
affections on this his only begotten son Izates.’’—(An- 
tiq. B. xx. ch. 2. 1.) ‘* Josephus was cotemporary 
with the apostle John. He was a Jew, a priest, and a 
Pharisee. His usage of the term only begotten son, 
settles the question about the usus loquendi of the 
Jews at that time, and shows most fully that its mean- 
ing is the most beloved son’’*—the expression being 
evidently used in a tropical sense. So in Heb. 11:17, 
Abraham is said to have “ offered up his only begotten 
son’’—a term expressive of the utmost tenderness and 
love toward the object of his affection. 

It does not appear from anything said in the 


Scriptures, that a “‘ mysterious’? or a ‘ 


‘ correspond- 
ing’? sense of the term, only begotten Son of God, 
ever entered into the mind of the sacred writer. In 
the simplicity of ancient language, various other ex- 
pressions are used, which cannot, with any good rea- 
son, be interpreted literally, as the real meaning of the 
writer, or the speaker ; though this thing, like almost 
everything else, has often been done. Christ says; 
‘* Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath 
eternal life. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my 
blood is drink indeed.’? It is well known that this has 
often been interpreted literally. The same is true of 
what he says of washing the disciples? feet. It would 
not comport with that sobriety which ought to be main- 
tained in this discussion, to dwell upon the literal 


* Bib. Rep., Jan. 1840, p. 158. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 69 


meaning of the terms used by David (1 Sam. 25 : 22), 
in his threat against Nabal’s household. It is quite 
enough to say, that he threatened to destroy all the 
male members of the family before the morning light; 
without supposing that he meant to pay particular at- : 
tention to the literal meaning of all his expressions. 
Various expressions are used in the Bible, the true and 
proper meaning of which, on common-sense principles, 
would seem to be quite as obvious, as the literal or 
corresponding one. Shall we say, then, that the term, 
only begotten of the Father, must be understood in a 
literal or a corresponding sense? The answer to this 
question will be very much in accordance with the 
views which different persons entertain of the doctrine 
of “‘ eternal generation.”’? But it is not enough to say 
that this term is ‘‘ mysterious, and beyond the reach of 
our minds ;”’ and that ‘it is impossible for us to know 
the mystery of this generation. For, it is reasonable to 
suppose that God intended to reveal something by such 
terms as, “‘only Son’? and “only begotten of the — 
Father ;’’ and if so, what he Aas revealed, is not a 
mystery. We are not authorized to throw a cloud of 
““ mystery’? over the subject, and to “ protest,”’ that 
no one has a right to approach it for examination, be- 


‘‘an awful mystery.”? For God has not 


cause it ls 
said that there 1s an unrevealed truth denoted by the 
above terms; if he had, we would receive it without 
hesitation, as a fact declared, but not explained: but 
we cannot receive it upon mere human authority. - 


What, then, shall we say of such language as this ; 


70 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


“That the second Person of the Godhead was from 
eternity Son: Son, not by creation, or adoption, or 
incarnation, or office; but by nature ; the true, pro- 
per, coéqual, coéssential, and coéternal Son of the Fa- 
ther ?”’* It is not to be found in the Scriptures; nor 
has it any support from them, understood and explained 
according to common-sense principles of. interpretation. 
Such language and such views had their origin in the 
schools, and have all their authority from them, and 
not from the Scriptures. 

The same writer represents ‘‘ eternal generation”’ as 
denoting and meaning “ a mysterious and ineffable?” — 
‘a Divine and eternal relation” between the first and 
second Persons of the Trinity. Now, if we understand 
the writer, as to the meaning of the term, this repre- 
sentationt seems to be a plain departure from the sense 
of those fathers who formed the various Creeds which 
have been received by “‘ the church,” as presenting the 
Divine verity in the case. ‘* The generation of the 
Divine substance of the Son’’—*‘ begotten from the 
nature of the Father,’ is something more than simple 
relation ; it is real though mysterious generation— 
generation of his Divine substance, from the nature of 
the Father. Had such a view—that of simple relation- 
ship—been presented in the time of those fathers, it is 
somewhat doubtful whether it would have been con- 
sidered quite ‘‘orthodox,’? and whether it would not 
have been publicly denounced as “‘heresy.’? Indeed, 


*Dr. Miller’s Letters to Prof. Stuart, p. 38. 
+ Letters to Prof. Stuart, p. 272. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 71 


how a man holding and maintaining it, would himself 
have fared in those days, might have been to him a 
pretty serious question. But if this worthy and vener- 
able Doctor may depart thus much from,‘ the doctrine~ 
of the church ;’’ then, surely, others may inquire, 
whether even he has given the exact sense of the Scrip- 
tures on the subject. We are not “shut up” to this 
view of the case, as the only one which the Bible pre- 
sents. Every one is at liberty to examine for himself 
what is revealed—to consider the nature of the subject 
and the Hebraistic use of the terms in question, and 
after a careful examination, to come to such a result 
as common-sense principles of interpretation shall re- 
quire. 

If the term Son of God is sometimes used to desig- 
nate the Divine nature of our glorious Redeemer, 0 is 
the name ‘* Christ, who is God over all.?’? But this 
does not prove that he is, in his Divine nature, the 
Son of God, or the Christ—the Messiah. It is said 
that ‘‘ God was manifest in the flesh ;°? but it is not 
said that the Son of God was manifest in the flesh. 
It is said that “* the Son of God was manifested’”—ap- 
peared among men as the Messiah and died on the 
cross— that he might destroy the works of the devil.”? 
So it is said that “‘ the children of God are manifest.” 
—(1 Jn. 3:8, 10.) These terms—the Son of God 
and Christ—are often used as proper names; and as 
such, may designate his whole Person,—the Son and 
the Father that dwelt in him,—and even denote his 
proper Divinity, before his incarnation. This is in 


72 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. © 


perfect accordance with the common and proper use of 


language. Thus we say—General Washington was 
born at such a time. But he was not born General— 
not even George, or Washington ; but an infant child, 
afterward called George Washington, much later ap- 
pointed Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the 
United States, and thenceforward known everywhere 
by the name—General Washington. This name is 
often carried back beyond the time when he became 
General, and is properly employed to designate him 
during the whole of his earthly existence; and even 
extending into the future. 

In the same manner, we use the term Son of God, 
‘In application to Jesus who is called Christ. The 
Logos existed in eternity, and was manifested in the 
flesh in time. ‘‘ The Son of God,’ used as a proper 
name, may be applied to him in every period of his 
existence. The same is true of other names by which 
he is called. And we are left to the exercise of our 
own private judgment and common sense, as to the 
meaning in each case, considering the connection in 
which it stands and the whole of what is revealed on 
the subject. When it is said—*‘ before Abraham was, 
Tam;’? “TI came down from heaven ;” he was born; 
he died; he rose from the dead; he ascended to hea- 
ven, and the like; we have simply to consider what is 
revealed and known respecting him, in order to ascer- 
tain the meaning in a given case. Then we may use 
the proper name as such, in reference to his Divinity 
or his humanity, his body or his soul, with perfect 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 73 


propriety. Just as we say of a man whom we all know 
- to have suffered some great calamity ; ‘‘ He has suf- 
fered a great loss.”? All who are acquainted with the 
fact, know how the language is to be understood. It 
may be, he has lost his right arm ; or he has lost his 
reason ; or he has lost his only child ; or he has lost 
the whole of his estate. The word—either his own 
proper name or its substitute—is used to designate him 
in very different respects ; and yet we say, very pro- 
perly, that he has suffered a great loss. So, in regard 
to the various names which the Scriptures apply to 
Christ,—used in the common and popular way,—there 
is no need of mistake, if owr pHILosopHY does not un- 
dertake to meddle with the subject. In one instance at 
least, even the name God appears to be used in this 
manner, with a good deal of latitude—supposing the 
text to be genuine. (Acts 20 : 28.)—“ Feed the 
church of God, which he hath purchased with his own 
blood ;?’—** Feed the church of God,’? who was mani- 
fest in the flesh—the church of Christ, “which he hath 
purchased with his own blood.’? This is not using the 
name God, with much, if any, more latitude than the 
terms, ‘* the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father 
of Glory,” and ‘‘ God the Father,”’ are used, in Eph. 
1 : 17-20, and Jude 1; as already noticed. We 
know it has been said,—sticking to the letter,—that 
the meaning is, the church was in fact purchased with 
the blood of God, and that God died on the cross ;* but 


* The Sufferings of Christ. By a Layman. 
+ 


74 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


we cannot help thinking, that common sense and the 
Scriptures have had quite too little to do with this in- 
terpretation. There may have been—there doubtless 
was—a deep sympathy of the Divine with the suffer- 
ing human nature of Christ, while God did not die. 
‘The Father that dwelt in him,’? sympathized with 
him in all things. 

But we are told that the Sonship of Christ is ‘Sa 
mysterious and ineffable relation ;?? and we are cau- 
tioned against approaching it for examination, but with 
great awe. We should, indeed, always approach the 
sacred Scriptures, to examine into their meaning, with 
very great reverence, and with a deep feeling of our 
need of Divine aid, in order to a right and full under- 
standing of them. But in regard to “‘ the mystery of 
this [eternal] generation,”’ the proper feeling of awe in 
view of the subject, should have had its influence a lit- 
tle sooner—before we had altered or added to Divine 
revelation. Then, it would seem, we should under- 
stand the term, ‘‘ only begotten Son of God,’ as de- 
noting, most beloved Son—most favored and honored 
of God, as the Messiah. No other “ corresponding” 
sense of the term, seems to be required or justified by 
the Scriptures. 

The same is true of *‘ corresponding distinctions’? in 
the nature of the Godhead, other than the revealed at- 
tributes of God, as the adequate cause of the develop- 
ments which he has made. ‘The same principles of 
interpretation which would justify the one, would jus- 
tify the other. The same principles which lead us to 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 75 


reject the doctrine of “ eternal generation,” would lead 
us to reject the doctrine of ‘ eternal’’ or “ correspond- 
ing distinctions’? as a matter revealed—whatever there 
may be, which is not revealed. 

The same remarks apply to the doctrine of “ the 
eternal procession of the Spirit.”’ It has nothing but 
a literal or “ corresponding”? interpretation to support 
it—an interpretation which the nature of the subject 
does not require or permit. 

This doctrine as taught in the schools, supposes that 
the Holy Spirit, “as to the manner of his being,’’* 
proceedeth from the Father and the Son. In the Ni- 
cene Creed it is as follows; “I believe in the Holy 
Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from 
the Father.”? In the Athanasian Creed, “ The Holy 
Ghost is of the Father and the Son, neither made, nor 
created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”? In the Arti- 
“cles of the English Church ; ‘The Holy Ghost pro- 
ceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one sub- 
stance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the 
Son, very and eternal God.’? Dr. Owen and Dr. 
Miller adopt the language of the Latin church, calling 
it “spiration.”? _ The latter representst the Holy 
Spirit “Cas being, in a Divine and incomprehensible 
sense, the Spiration or Breath of the first and second” 
Persons of the Trinity. 

This theory of “ the eternal procession of the Spirit,” 
is derived from the following passages of Scripture: 


* Watson’s Theol. Inst. p. 221. 
t Letters to Prof. Stuart, p. 75. 


76 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


John 14: 26. 15:26. 16:7. ‘‘ But the Comforter, 
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in 
my name, he will teach: you,” &c. ‘“* But when the 
Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the 
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from 
the Father, he shall testify of me.”? ‘‘If I go not 
away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I 
depart, I will send him unto you.’’ 

On this subject, Bishop Pearson remarks :* ‘* Now 
this procession of the Spirit, in reference to the Father, 
is delivered expressly in relation to the Son, and is 
contained virtually in the Scriptures. First, at is ex- 
pressly said, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the 
Father.’’ Again: ‘‘ Because the Holy Ghost proceed- 


is ever sent by the Holy Spirit; because neither of. 
them received the Divine nature from the Spirit; but 
‘both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, 
because the Divine nature, common to both the Father 
and the Son, was communicated by them both to the 
Holy Ghost. As therefore the Scriptures declare ex- 
pressly, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father ; so 
do they also virtually teach, that he proceedeth from 
the Son.”’ | | 

In like manner, “it is expressly said’? by Christ 
himself, .in this same interview with his disciples,— 
referring to the bread and wine in the sacramental sup- 


* Discourses on the Creed. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 7 


per,— this is my body—this is my blood.”? But the 
Protestant church does not construe this language lite- 
rally. Why not? Why should we not say that in 
some “ mysterious and ineffable sense,”’ the consecrated 
bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ ; 
that “it is impossible for us to know the mystery of 
this”? transubstantiation ; and that ‘‘ it is not lawful to 
search into these heavenly mysteries ;”? as well as to 
say these things of eternal generation and eternal pro- 
cession? No good reason appears for interpreting these 
declarations of Christ, in his last conversation with his 
disciples, on principles so radically unlike. In respect 
to “the procession of the Spirit,”’ the language of 
Christ does not seem to refer to “the manner of his 
being’’—not to teach us how the Holy Spirit came to 
be what he is; namely, by having ‘‘ the Divine nature 
communicated’? to him by the Father and the Son. 
The doctrine of transubstantiation seems, from the 
language employed, to come much nearer to plausibility, 
than the doctrine of eternal procession. But the lan- 
euage of Christ seems plainly and simply to teach us 
what the Holy Spirit would do, under the preaching of 
the gospel, after that Christ should have finished his 
work as a preparation, from which these gracious Di- 
vine influences were to “‘ proceed,”’ or result. He an- 
nounced the fact, and gave his disciples a promise for 
their comfort and encouragement. | 
- The plain and obvious meaning of the above passa- 
ges, quoted from the last discourse of Christ with his 
disciples just before he suffered,—stripped of antique 


78 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


philosophy and mysticism,—appears to be this: When 
the way was actually prepared for the salvation of men, 
by the sufferings and death of the Son of God, and 
when the gospel came to be preached to the nations ; 
then, according to the eternal purpose of God, Christ 
declared that these special Divine influences should 
accompany the word preached, and render it effectual 
to the conversion and sanctification of men. In other 
words, the gracious operations of the Spirit, in this 
whole work of sanctification, ‘‘ proceed’’ from what the 
Father and the Son have done in devising and execut- 
ing, thus far, the plan of redemption. From these 
doings and sufferings, as a preparation, “* proceed”’ the 
Spirit’s various and gracious operations in extending 
and completing the work, as thus begun. ‘These va- 
rious influences would not have been put forth, nor 
would men have been converted, sanctified and saved, 
had not God devised the plan and sent his Son, and 
had not Christ come and died upon the cross. They 


“* proceed,”? or result, from what the Father 


therefore 
and the Son have done in the work of redemption. 
The Spirit, in the exercise of his gracious agency, 
proceedeth from them. 

Such language as proceedeth, send, come, &c., applied 
to the Holy Spirit, should not be interpreted in a sense 
‘< corresponding”’ to the literal meaning of the terms ; 
as though the Spirit of God was not everywhere pre- 
sent, and had to be sent, as a subordinate agent, from 
one place to another, according to the exigencies of the 
case ; but it refers especially to the results of Christ’s 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 79 


work—to the gracious influences of the Spirit, exerted 
in carrying forward and completing the great work of 
man’s redemption. This language is hwman language ; 
and the representation is very much like that which is 
employed in speaking of the affairs of men. A man is 
supposed to be, where he acts ; and to go, in order that 
he may act in a given place where he was not before ; 
or he is sent, to perform a special service, where his 
presence is needed for that purpose. The same lan- 
guage is applied to God, with reference to the display 
of his power, justice, grace, and glory in various re- 
spects. Accordingly it is said, (Gen. 11 : 5.)—‘t The 
Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which 
the children of men builded.’’? Had he not seen it be- 
fore? Is he not everywhere present? (v. 7.)—‘‘ Go 
to, let us go down, and there confound their lan- 
guage’’—declaring what he would do. (Exod. 19: 
20.)—‘‘ The Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the 
top of the mount ;’’ he there displayed his glorious 
power and majesty; communicating with Moses, and 
through him with the people. He is known to be 
present by his doings. Yet he was “not in the earth- 
quake,”? but in “‘ the still small voice.”” In like man- 
ner, Christ says, ‘‘ the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
will send in my name??—meaning that He would then 
manifest his gracious and powerful influences in en- 
lightening, comforting and encouraging the disciples, 
and rendering them successful in their work. The 
meaning of such language as proceedeth, send, &c.—if 
we duly consider that, in talking to us, God uses the 


80 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


language and speaks after the manner of men,—gseems 
not difficult; and if it is not generally and rightly ap- 
prehended, this may be owing to customary modes of 
association, conception, and philosophizing, rather than 
to any inherent difficulty in the subject itself. 

It would seem, from the considerations which have 
been presented, that the scholastic theories of “ eternal 


»? ** eternal procession,’”’ and ‘eternal dis- ~ 


generation, 
tinctions in the nature of the Godhead,’’—not the eternal 
Scripture truths which they are honestly intended to 
ulustrate and help sustain,—originated in the same 
philosophy, and are maintained by the same principles 
of interpretation. In respect to the two former theo- 
ries, the venerable Dr. Miller very consistently re- 
marks,* that ‘‘ the several parts of this system must 
stand or fall together. ..... . Those who deny 
the eternal generation of the Son,” as a doctrine taught 
in the Scriptures, ‘‘ will naturally, and unavoidably, 
deny the eternal procession of the Spirit,”? as a doc- 
trine taught in the Scriptures. For this plain reason : 
that they rest on the same scholastic foundation. To 
these he might have added the ¢hird theory above, and 
that of transubstantiation. The same mode of inter- 
pretation and philosophizing which leads to the adop- 
tion of one of them, tf carried out, would lead to the 
adoption of them all. The theories of ‘ eternal gene- 
ration,’’ ‘‘ eternal procession,’ and “eternal distinc- 
tion,”? are triad sisters—daughters of the Nicene phi- 


* Letters to Prof, Stuart, ed. 1823, p. '73. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 8i 


losophy, and descendants of the New Platonic. This 
sisterhood of theories,—to which that of transubstan- 
tiation properly belongs,—cannot with propriety be 
separated. 

Moreover, in regard to the argument for distinctions 
in the nature of the Godhead, now under consideration, 
we would say, it is an acknowledged principle that it is 
unphilosophical to assign more causes than are clearly 
adequate to the effect. If so, it is unphilosophical to 
assign distinctions, other than the revealed’attributes of 
God, as the only adequate cause of the developments 
which he has made of himself to men. Not only so, 
but it is likewise wnscriptural to assign unrevealed, 
unknown distinctions as the cause of effects which the 
Bible ascribes to his revealed attributes. What good 
reason is there, then, for insisting that there must be a 
“‘ corresponding distinction’? in the very nature of the 
Godhead, in order to account for what he has actually 
revealed of himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? 
Is the mind of man, apart from“its customary associa- 
tions and modes of philosophizing, driven to the ne- 
cessity of such a supposition, in order to find a satisfac-- 
tory resting-place in the revelation which God has 
made of himself to man? Surely, the mind of man 
cannot be so driven beyond the boundaries of human 
knowledge, into the awful secret—the internal na- 
ture—of the great Eternal himself, unless by its own 
philosophizing ! Infinite wisdom, benevolence, holi- 
ness, justice, mercy, power,—these are the “ corre- 
sponding Bees adequate to all the effects in 

* 


82 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


question. What other “ effect”? is there, which cannot 
find an ‘‘ adequate cause”? in the love of God? With 
the learned and venerable author, whose argument is 
under consideration, we “‘ incline to say that distinction 
[that mysterious ‘ something’ in the Godhead] must be 
an attribute’’—the great Love of God—an attribute not 
hidden, but revealed. And yet, for centuries, we haye 
been groping around in the dark, with subtil dialectic 
feelers of Platonic or Nicene origin, to discover some 
other corresponding, unrevealed distinction in the -na- 
ph of the Godhead, when, but for our philosephy, the 

‘adequate cause”? is plainly to be seen on almost 
every page of the New Testament. 

Were we to make a summary statement of the case, 
in accordance with what has been advanced in this 
chapter, it would be this: There is in God a NATURE, 
prompting him to all the developments which he has 
made of himself in creation, providence, and redemp- 
tion, and to whatever developments have anywhere 
been made of God, or may yet be made of him in the 
coming ages of time or eternity. What need of Say- 
ing more? What more is revealed 2 

It is not denied, in this Biblical view of the Trinity, 
that there is, apart from all Divine manifestation, a real 
distinction of three, or three hundred Persons in the 
very nature of the Godhead itself: but it is distinctly 
maintained, that this is not necessary to account for 
these Divine developments ; that it is more a matter of 
philosophical speculation and supposed necessary infer- 
ence, than of actual revelation, and -that it is extra- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 83 


scriptural, and therefore not to be claimed as Divine 
verity. 

In addition to the remarks already made on these 
positions, we quote the following: “ Trinitarians have 
generally held and freely conceded, that this doctrine 
of Persons in the Godhead is not directly taught in the 
Scriptures ; they have held it as a theory, but as the 
only theory that will satisfactorily explain the various 
and apparently diverse statements of the sacred writers 
on this subject.”* Prof. Knapp also remarks, that 
“the theologians of former times generally blended 
their own speculations and those of others on .the sub- 
ject of the Trinity, with the statement of the doctrine 
of the Bible?’t—a practice which is yet by no means 
discontinued. 

“Tt cannot be denied that the doctrines of the Chris- 
tian church were for a long time in the keeping of men, 
who made no proper use of the Bible in their studies— 
who speculated, daringly, recklessly about God and 
things Divine. Cut off m a great measure from the 
actual world, and having little experience of the real 
wants of men, and of the fitness of God’s revealed truth 
to meet those wants, they gave themselves up to specu- 
lation, as the ultimate end of their intellectual exist-- 
ence. The result was what might have been expecied 
of men thus circumstanced. They encumbered the 
simple word of God with their own fancies. They 
eramped it to make it conform to their own scholastic 


* The Congregationalist, (Boston,) June 29, 1849, p. 2. col. 2. 
+ Theology, p. 181, col. 2. ; 


84 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


molds. It was in that age, that many mere human 
notions were set afloat, which, passing down to after 
times, were currently received as truths. These specu- 
lations have shaped to a greater or less degree the 
thoughts and opinions of almost all men. Consider- 
ing that this has been the condition of the human mind 
in past centuries, it is at least fair to suggest to those 
who hold the older forms of theological doctrine, that 
they are quite as likely to be somewhat under the do- 
minion of mere human philosophy, as others. It is at 
least fair that they should diligently consider their own 
case, and not take it for granted that they alone are 
free, and other men in bondage. ....... Our 
only aim is, to lead men to a fair and candid estimate 
of themselves, and not too hastily to suppose, that all 
forms of doctrine, just so far as they “‘ differ from their 
own, are necessarily wrong. The ‘ traditions of the 
elders’ are no more to be received as authority, now, 
than in the times of the Pharisees.’’* 

These remarks are just and timely. Yet there are 
some, who cannot endure that any theological doctrine 
—that of the Trinity, for example—should not be fitted 
to “their own scholastic mold.” If they see a form 
that has not been shaped according to this pattern, 
they cast their eye backward, along the line of centu- 
ries, for some heretical name which may be applied to 
it, and answer as an argument,—at least for an argu- 
mentum ad invidiam, or ‘‘mad-dog’”? argument,—in- 


* The Congregationalist, June 22, 1849, p. 2, col. 6. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 85 


stead of meeting it with scriptural, common-sense, 
and manly arguments adapted to “‘ the common mind.”? 
We have recently counted thirteen such names applied 
to a single case of this kind, without counting them all. 

The following has somewhat recently been put forth 
from a Chair of Theology,* as the sum and substance 
of Orthodoxy on this subject :— 


‘* The Unitarian believes in one God in one Person ; 
while the Trinitarian believes in one God in three Persons. 
And these three must be, not fictetious, dramatic, represen- 
tative persons, like the characters in a romance or a play ; 
but real, substantial, eternal distinctions, in the one undi- 
vided essence of the Godhead. So the Church has always 

understood the subject. ..... So the matter must be 

understood ; or there is no real, valid distinction between 
the Trinitarian and the Unitarian—none which is at all 
worth contending for—none which does not lie in mere 
words, and fancies, and figures of speech.”? 


In the first sentence above, the word Person is twice 
used, but obviously in different senses; and yet they 
are mentioned as if used in the same sense: otherwise, 
the statement has no consistent meaning, and no force. 
Tn the first instance, ‘‘ one Person’? means, one infinite 
Being. In the second, the Professor would not be un- 
derstood to mean three infinite Beings. Do Trinita- 
rians profess to believe in three Gods? We are not 
aware that ‘“ Unitarians believe in one God in one 
Person,’ as the word is used in the common theory of 
the Trinity. For in that case, they would not “ be- 
lieve in one God’? at all; but only in so much of God 


* Rey. Enoch Pond, D.D. 


86 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 
2 


as is denoted by one Person. In speaking of the Fa- 
ther, Dr. Miller says; “‘ He is not, he cannot be God 
— without them,’’—the other two Persons,—‘ and there- 
fore, he is not alone the supreme God.”’* But if the 
word Person, above, is used in different senses, how 
does it appear, from this Professor’s statement, that 
Unitarians do not believe in the God of the Bible? 

But “‘those three must be real, substantial, eternal 
distinctions, in the one undivided essence of the God- 
head.?? Where is this taught? Not in the Bible. 
For, ‘‘ Trinitarians have generally held and freely con- 
ceded, that this doctrine of Persons in the Godhead, is 
not directly taught in the Scriptures ; they have held 
it as a theory ;”? and yet they are not at all agreed as 
to what this “theory”? is. There are almost as many 
forms of it, as there are theologians who hold to a 
theory. ‘This is no modern view of the subject. Ht- 
lary says of it, in his day; that “there were as many 
creeds as opinions, and as many doctrines as inclina- 
tions. Homoousian is rejected and explained away. 
Every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible 
mysteries.”? And yet most theologians of the present 
day, in connection with great diversity and inconsis- 
tency of representation, varied oftener than ‘ 
moon,’? do still hold, substantially, to one or the other 
of the two forms of the common theory, which have — 


every 


been specified. But if it is not taught in the Scrip- 
tures, where is it taught ? In rum Scuoous. “ The- 


* Letters to Prof. Stuart, p. 278. The ztalecs are his own. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 87 


ologians” have “blended their own speculations with 
the statement of the doctrines of the Bible ;”? and thus, 
these speculations have been wrought into creeds, to be 
received as Divine verities ; and the dissentient, pro- 
nounced ‘‘a heretic, incapable of salvation.2? Yet it 
is said; “So the church has always understood the 
subject.”’ 

“The church !?? It has been very much like an 
army. The will of the latter is that of their several 
commanders; determined, it.may be, in Council ; 
nevertheless, the will of the few, if not of a single 
mind. Ifa soldier does not obey orders, properly given 
and understood; he is punished with great severity. 
So it has been with the members of the church. T hey 
must receive and abide by the articles of faith estab- 
lished by Councils ; or they have been punished by 
fire and faggot, ky banishment, by excommunication 
and anathema, by church censure, by branding with 
heretical names,—thus defaming or destroying their 
characters, if not taking their lives,—or in whatever 
way the taste and fashion of the age apply coercion, in 
such a case. Generally, the church has not been per- 
mitted to think aloud on this subject,—except in one 
or another set of terms,—or individuals to act for them- 
selves. If they have ventured to do so, ae have had 
to suifer the consequences. 

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was banished and 
recalled repeatedly, according to the party in power. 
Sometimes one party prevailed, and sometimes another. 
In one Council, he was condemned by ninety bishops, 


88 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


as a heretic. In another Council he was declared ‘* in- 
nocent,”? by one hundred bishops; “‘ and Pope Julius 
confirmed this sentence, in conjunction with more than 
three hundred bishops assembled at Sardis, from the 
East and West.” ‘Of the forty-six years of his 
official life, he spent twenty in banishment, [on account 
of his religious opinions,] and the greatest part of the 
remainder in defending the Nicene Creed.”* How 
much freedom of thought and of belief was allowed 
‘the church?’ in those days, and for a long line of 


centuries afterward? Of the whole church, how many ~ 


suffered martyrdom, on one side or the, other, for their 
religious opinions,—each in its turn declared to be 
. “heresy,’’—it would be no easy matter to ascertain. 
After all; ‘so the church has always understood the 
subject !?? How could they understand and believe 
otherwise, unless they were prepared to go to the 
stake ? 

Look now to Protestant England—perhaps the most 
favored portion of Christendom. How much freedom 
of thought and of discussion on the subject of the 
Trinity, has been there enjoyed by the church? There 
has always been a disposition to think and reason on 
the subject, among those—and they have been not a 
few—who were not, satisfied with the common theory ; 
and some men of clear and independent minds would 
sometimes speak out ; but the strong arm of civil and 
ecclesiastical law has very often been put forth to sup- 


* Encyclop. Amer.; Art. Athanasius. 


¥ ——- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 89 


press it ; and when not actively put forth, its bad in- 
fluence has been widely felt. 

As early as the thirteenth year of the Protestant 
queen Elizabeth, 1571, a law was enacted, entitled, 
“ An Act for Ministers of the Church to be of sound 
Religion ; by which it is provided, ‘ That if any eccle- 
siastical, or which shall have ecclesiastical livings, shall 
advisedly maintain, or affirm any doctrine directly con- 
trary or repugnant to the Thirty-nine Articles, being 
convented before the bishop of the diocese, shall per- 
sist therein, or not revoke his error, or after such re- 
vocation eftsoon [agazn, or thereafter] affirm such un- 
true doctrine, such maintaining, or affirming, and per- 
sisting, or such eftsoon affirming, shall be just cause to 
deprive such person of his ecclesiastical promotion ; 
and it shall be lawful to the bishop of the diocese, or 
the ordinary, to deprive such person so persisting, or 
lawfully convicted of such eftsoons affirming, and upon 
such sentence of deprivation pronounced, he shall be 
indeed deprived.’ ?’* 

So in the ninth year of king William III., 1695, 
royal “ Directions” were issued by the “head of the 
Church’’ and “ defender of the faith,” to the ‘‘ Arch- 
bishops and Bishops, for the preserving of unity in the 
church, and the purity of the Christian faith, concern- 
ing the Holy Trinity.”? In these ‘ Directions,” the 
persons addressed were required “‘ to see that’? the 

* The Thirty-Nine Articles, &c. Acts of Parliament and Proclama- 


tions concerning Ecclesiastical Matters, &c.; ed. London, 1724; pp, 
165-6. 


90 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


following things were “‘ observed within their several 
dioceses.”’ | 

4. That no preacher whatsoever, in his sermon or 
lecture, do presume to deliver any other doctrine con- 
cerning the blessed Trinity, than what is contained in 
the Holy Scriptures, and is agreeable to the Three 
Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.” 
[“The Three Creeds—JVicene Creed, Athanasian 
Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ 
Creed.’? | 

‘9. That in the explication of this doctrine they 
carefully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves 
to such ways of expression as have been commonly 
used in the Church.’’ 

It is further-declared in the same instrument ; ‘* And 
whereas we also understand, that divers persons, who 
are not of the clergy, have of late presumed, not only 
to talk and to dispute against the Christian faith con- 
cerning the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, but also to 
write and publish books and pamphlets against the 
same, and industriously spread them through the king- 
dom, contrary to our known laws established in this 
realm; We do therefore strictly charge and command 
you, together with all other means suitable to your 
holy profession, to make use of your authority accord- 
ing to law, for the repressing and restraining of all 
such exorbitant practices. And for your assistance we 
will give charge to our judges, and all other our civil 
officers, to do their duty herein, in executing the laws 
against all such persons as shall by these means give 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 91 


occasion of scandal, discord and disturbance in our 
church and kingdom.’’* 
In order to suppress the spirit of inquiry which was 
awake on this subject, and the disposition which was | 
manifested to discuss it; it was thought necessary a 
few years afterward,—the first year of George I., — 
1714,—again to issue the above “* Directions,’ with 
some additions, against those who “* presumed not only 
to talk and to dispute,” “but also to write and pub- 
lish books and pamphlets” concerning the doctrine of 
the Trinity. The fourth article in the instrument of 
this date, is; ‘‘ That none of the clergy, in their ser- 
mons or lectures, presume to intermeddle in any affairs 
of state or government, or the constitution of the realm, 
save only on such special feasts and fasts as are or 
shall be appointed by public authority ; and then, no 
further than the occasion of such days shall strictly 
require. Provided always, that nothing im this Direc- 
tion shall be understood to discharge any person from 
preaching in defense of OUR ROYAL SUPREMACY estab- 
lished by law, as often, and in such manner, as the 
first canon of this Church doth require.” Kingeraft 
and priestcraft went hand in hand, in those days. 
They countenanced and supported each other ; and all 
this, to help support God’s truth, and keep out heresy; 
lest innovation in the Church should lead to innovation 
in the regal state ! But it would seem that this effort 
to suppress freedom of thought and discussion, was not 


* The book last referred to, pp. 95-6. 


92 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


altogether successful ; for, in the year 1721, the same 

“Directions” were again issued, containing algo the 

edict. by Queen Elizabeth, already cited.* The writer 
of this has no later account of these matters. 

These are some of the ways and means by which it 
has come to pass, that “‘so the church has always 
understood the subject.”? The representation seems 
to be, that this understanding of the doctrine, by ‘ the 
Church,”’ has resulted from a general, careful and free 
examination of the Scriptures ; otherwise, it is not to 
the purpose at all, and has no force or meaning as evi- 
dence in the case. But on this point, we shall have 
more to say hereafter. We only say now, in passing, 
that, so far is this from being true, the most stringent 
means have generally been employed to prevent any 
other conviction or the adoption of any other views 
than those which were cast in the same ‘ scholastic 
molds’’—none but those which conformed to the stereo- 
typed terms of established Creeds and Articles of Reli- 
gion. Sure evidence this, that such theory and forms 
of language are orthodox—according to the true and 
proper sense of the Scriptures ! 

“So the church has anways understood the sub- 
ject.”? Those forms of doctrine laid down in ancient 
Creeds and Articles of Religion, have, indeed, anti- 
quity on their side, as the doctrines of the Bible. So 
has monarchy, as the only authorized form of civil 
government. It has been held, by almost all the na- 


* Ibidem, pp. 157-9; and 165-7. 


— ——- 


rae 2. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 93 


tions of Christendom since the commencement of the 
Christian era, as the only form of civil government 
established by Divine authority. Are we, therefore, 
bound to receive it as the only form which has “ Di- 
vine right?’ on its side—the only one authorized or sus- 
tained by the principles of the Bible? If not; then, 
why are we bound by the forms or the language in © 
which the doctrine of the Trinity has been presented 
from remote antiquity, because they have been long 
received by the church, in the circumstances specified ? 
If the argument from antiquity is good in the one case, 
it is good in the other; and republics should forthwith 
become converted into monarchies, But as we, in this 
country, justly claim the right to examine and judge 
for ourselves in the one case; so have we an equal 
right to do the same, in the other case. 

We have mentioned a prominent and very efficient 
reason, why the common theory of the Trinity has been 
so long received, and how it has come to pass that ‘‘ so 
the church has always understood the subject.”’ It 
has not been so, because that theory is plainly taught 
in the Scriptures ; nor, on account of any obscurity or 
indefiniteness in the Book of revelation : but, when the 
theory was formed and adopted, this Book was very 
generally interpreted, according to unsound principles, 
and its truths seen through the medium of the philoso- 
phy then prevalent ; and having been once adopted and 
extensively received, and strong parties formed in re- 
ference to it, it was no easy task, in later days, espe- 
cially in the circumstances which have been specified, 


94 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


for individuals openly to reject it; however clearly 
they might have seen its repugnance to comnion sense 
and the Scriptures. { | 
But there is another reason for the continued preva- 
lence of this theory, somewhat different from, and yet 
allied to the former one, even when there was sufficient 
light to produce an opposite conviction ; if all had been 
permitted freely to canvass the subject, and to profess 
their real convictions. We do not refer to the influ- 
ence of Aabit, in several respects, in retaining long- 
established forms of doctrine and of language ; power- 
ful as that influence always is: but we refer to the 
influence resulting from what may be called, the par- 
ticular structure of society, at any given time—of men 
occupying exalted stations, civil, literary, and eccle- 
siastical—notwithstanding the abundance of light, and 
frequently the prevalence of conviction to the contrary. 
This might be illustrated by various examples: we will 
_ name two of them. 
For a long period after the discovery of the Coperni- 
can or true system of astronomy, it was generally 
believed to be contrary to the obvious teachings of 
revelation; because the Bible speaks of the sun as 
?  setting,’? “going down,’’ and the like. 
People generally, and even the better informed, were 


‘‘ rising, 


slow to learn what Galileo and a few others tried to 
teach them,—what common sense might have taught 
them,—that the Scriptures were given us, “not to 
teach philosophy, but religion.’? According to the 
custom of those times, for maintaining what they be- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 95 


lieved the Scriptures to inculcate ; Galileo, then about 
seventy years of age, was summoned to Rome, to an- 
swer to the charge of heresy, before the Inquisition. 
He was tried by the pope and cardinals, in their way 
of doing such things, and the system he had main- 
tained, condemned. He was sentenced to abjure his 
system ‘‘on the Gospels.” A part of his sentence is 
expressed in the following terms :—- 

“4, The proposition that the sun is the center 
[of the system] of the world and immovable from its 
place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally 
heretical ; because it is expressly contrary to Holy 
Scripture. 

‘© 9. The proposition that the earth is not the center 
‘of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and 
also with a diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically 
false, and theologically considered at least erroneous im 
pail 

This sentence he solemnly ratified, by signing it with 
his own hand. (June 22, 1633.) ‘* Rising from his 
knees after this solemnity, he whispered to a friend, 
“It moves, for all that.’ ?’ This solemn farce did not 
disprove the Copernican system of astronomy ; and it 
has long since been universally received as true, “* for 
all that.”’ | 

So in the other case: That the common theory of the 
Trinity is not the true ‘‘ center’’—the great central 
truth—of revelation, and that the Bible was not given 


* Penny Cyclopedia, Art. Galileo. Also Edinb. Encyc. 


96 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


to teach us the “‘ philosophy” of the Trinity—‘“ the 
mode of the Divine existence,”’ but the attributes of 
God and his relations to us and the creation around 
us ; there is sufficient light clearly to see and perceive. 
Denounce a Biblical Trinity without the common the- 
ory, as “ formally heretical ;?? bring the influence of 
men in exalted station to bear against it, because, ‘‘ so 
the Church has always understood the subject ;”’ ar- 
raign those who hold it before some ecclesiastical tri- 
bunal, and require them to make a solemn recantation, 
or be cast out as heretics ; still, ‘‘ it moves’”—the doc- 
trine is true, “‘ for all that.”’ No inquisitorial process, 
however modified its form, can annihilate God’s truth, 
or convert false philosophy into Divine verity. 

It is well known that for a long period, a belief in 
witchcraft—unreasonable and monstrous as that wicked 
absurdity is—was very generally prevalent among all 
classes of society, both in Great Britain (to say nothing 
of continental Europe) and in her American colonies. 
During that period, a book was published, called 
“‘ Seot?s Discovery of Witchcraft ;”? with a long title 
naming its method, and assigning the reason of its 
publication—“‘ for the undeceiving of judges, justices, 
and juries, and for the preservation of poor people, 
&c.; with a treatise also upon the nature of spirits 
and devils, &c.” 

“Tt is said that this curious book, so elaborately 
written upon these uncommon subjects, first published 
by Reginald Scot, Esq., in 1584, had, for a whale, a 
very good effect upon the kingdom, in carrying off those 


. ‘ ‘ a al 
a See OE Se i Te 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. O7 


dregs of superstition to which (as the case of Joanna 
Southcote has proved) England seems naturally sub- 
ject, by the paroxysms into which it has so frequently 
relapsed. James Ady, Esq., in his Perfect Discovery 
of Witchcrafé, published in quarto about 1661, ob- 
served, that Mr. Scot’s book did, for some time, make 
great impression upon the magistracy, and also upon 
the clergy ; but that, since that time, England had 
shamefully fallen from the truth which it began to re- 
celve.”? 3 

King James the First wrote a Dialogue, called Demon- 
ology, first printed in Edinburgh in 1597, intended as 
an answer to Scot’s Discovery; and instead of confuting 
him, “‘ not one of Scot’s arguments was answered ; but 
the king had continued in the groundless affirmation 
of the tenets refuted by Scot, and unwarranted either 
by scripture or reason. ‘The king’s sentiments, he 
(Ady) observed, might bring Scot’s work into contempt 
among persons dazzled by great names; but with those 
of discernment, and unbiased judges, such an antago- 
nist would only raise the credit of the work opposed.* 

It seems, then, that so great an absurdity as witch- 
craft, continued to be received by all classes of persons, 
loig after it had been clearly refuted, and the truth 
respecting it had begun extensively to prevail. In the 
account referred to, John Wesley is spoken of as a be- 
liever in the doctrine. Even “ the upright and con- 
scientious Sir Matthew Hale, at a distance of three 


* For this account of Scot’s Discovery see The Entertaining Maga- 
zine ; London, 1815, v. 3, pp. 189—192, 263—266,.etc., ete. 
5 


98 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


long reigns, [from the publication of Scot’s Discovery, | 
was a firm believer in witchcraft; .and almost another 
century was necessary to put the people at. large in 
anything like a proper train to get rid of these shocking 
and absurd opinions.’”? The.influence of wealth, of 
rank, of power helped to sustain this belief, amid the 
abundant light which had been shed upon the subject. 
This doctrine had centuries of general reception to 
prove its soundness and truth; if such a thing be valid 
evidence, on which we can safely and properly depend. 

But if such evidence is not a good and safe founda- 
tion to rest upon, in such a case as the above, why 
take it as a basis, or any part of a basis, for the com- 
mon theory of the. Trinity? Why claim it as valid 
evidence that the theory is taught a or inferable from 
the Book of revelation, as was pertinaciously claimed 
for witchcraft; and that “it must be true 2s Ai Lat 
can be found in the Scriptures, without looking at them 
through the medium of false philosophy ; then let it be 
made to appear, and let it be universally received as 
true. 

The attentive reader must have perceived that the 
point of comparison before us is, the general reception 
of the doctrine or theory, for a long period; and not the 
doctrines or theories themselves, which are brought 
into juxtaposition for the sake of illustration. 

That general principle—found in the structure of 
society—which operated so powerfully to sustain witch- 
craft for centuries, when there was light enough to 
show it—when. it was clearly shown—to be an absurd, 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 99 


wicked, and abominable imposture; has operated for a 
much longer period, in-connection with other things, to 
AID in sustaining .a theory which had its origin in the 
Platonic, the New Platonic, or Nicene philosophy, 
applied to the interpretation of the Scriptures. That 
general principle still operates, through the influence of 
wealth, station, office, power, organization—Associa- 
tion, Council, Presbytery, Convention, etc.—all highly 
useful and very important, when properly employed and 
duly regulated by the principles of the gospel and the 
common rights of conscience—all in a measure indispen- 
sable; yet a principle possessing, in its central. and re- 
moter parts, a sort of ubiquity of overpowering influ- ; 
ence, tending, if misemployed and abused, to, suppress 
the free investigation of the Scriptures and the profes- 
sion of any results not fashioned in the same ‘‘ scholas- 
tic molds.”? ‘* So the church. has always unierees 
the subject.?? ‘i 
_ “So the matter must be understood ; or there 1s, ‘no 
real valid distinction between the Trinitarian and the 
Unitarian—none which i is at all worth contending for— 
none which does not lie in mere words, and fancies, and. 
figures of speech. » Ts it 60.2. _Is that all which dis- 
tinguishes a Trinitarian from a Unitarian—all which 
: worth contending for in what is properly called 
“orthodoxy” on this subject, and. which results from 
what ig revealed respecting the Father, Son, and 
Spirit 2 2 Are not the supreme Divinity of each of these ; ; 
fhe real condition of man as a sinner; ; God’s great 
love manifested in giving his Son to be the Savior of the 


100 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


world ; the sinner’s justification by faith in a crucified 
Redeemer ; and many other important truths insepa- 
rable from the revelation of the Godhead as made to 
man—are not these. “‘ worth contending for??? Are 
they nothing, compared to that theory? But the 
Professor believes in these doctrines; and perhaps he 
considers them, not only as taught in those very “ dis- 
tinctions,’’ but as incapable of being maintained with- 
out them. But these Scripture doctrines depend no 
more, for their maintenance and support, upon that 
theory of “‘ eternal distinctions in the one undivided 
essence of the Godhead ;”? than they do upon the philo- 
sophies of ancient Greece and Rome. They are inde- 
pendently taught in the Scriptures, and rest upon the 
veracity of God. ‘* The Bible—the Brsxe is the re- 
ligion of Protestants.”’ 

What! These distinctions the whole, in point of 
importance, of Trinitarian orthodoxy—all “which is 
worth contending for’?’—nothing else “‘ which does not 
lie in mere words, and fancies, and figures of speech !”’ 
Prof. Knapp says: ‘“‘ these particular formulas and 
theories, however much they may be regarded and in- 
sisted upon, have nothing to do with salvation.”’* Ne- 
ander also, in his History of the Christian Religion and 
Church, (v. 1, p. 572,)—a work which needs no com- 
mendation here,—speaking of ‘‘ the doctrine of the Trini- 
ty,”’ (by which we understand him to mean the common 
theory—the doctrine as it has been held,) remarks, 


* Theology, p. 131, c. 1. 


4 
i: 
. 


sas gig eR sm 


_A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 101 


that “‘ this doctrine does not strictly belong to the fun- 
damental articles of the Christian faith; as appears 
sufficiently evident from the fact, that 2 as expressly 
held forth in no particular passage of the New Testa- 
ment; for the only one in which this is done, the pas- 
sage relating to the three that bear record, (1 John 
5 : T,) is undoubtedly spurious,’’? And yet we are told 
that these distinctions are “‘ the only thing worth con- 
tending for!’ On the contrary, as God has not seen 
fit to reveal them, and they originated in the schools, 
they are no part WHATEVER of genuine orthodoxy. 
There are three kinds of orthodoxy. Biblical ortho- 
doxy; presenting simply, as Divine verity, what the 
Bible actually teaches. 'This is the only genuine ortho- 
doxy; for the Bible is the only true standard of ortho- 
doxy. Then there is Scholastic orthodoxy; including 
more or less, perhaps all, of what the Bible reveals, 
and much more beside; namely, the scholastic addi- 
tions—the costume in which the schools have presented 
Scripture truths. But the above representation of 
“eternal distinctions in the one undivided essence of 
the Godhead,”’ [what do we know about his essence, 
beside his attributes and relations, as he has revealed 
them 2] is no part of Biblical truth. It is simply the 
scholastic part of what is called orthodoxy on this sub- 
ject, separated from the Biblical. It is, therefore, 
nothing less, and nothing else than Spurious orthodoxy. 
(Of this kind of orthodoxy, there is not a little.) So 
far from being the only thing worth contending for, it 
is not worth contending for at all. And if “there is 


102 A BIBLIGAL TRINITY. 


no real, valid distinction between the Trinitarian and 
the Unitarian” but this, it is a great pity they should 
have been contending about it so long. If it be indeed 
so, they’ had better all take simple Biblical ground, 
leave off contending altogether, receive as Divine truth 
what the Bible plainly teaches, and imitate more fully 
the example of their Divine Master. ~ They may discuss 
the subject, in the spirit of Christ,—allowing all the 
same right of private judgment and the same rights of 
conscience,—with very great benefit to themselves and 
the cause of truth. But harsh disputation, uncharita- 
ble contention, and the calling of hard names, are un- 
worthy of Christianity, and of the age. 

It has been further put forth from the same Chair of 
‘Theology, that “the Trinity... .. is a revelation 
of God. Must it not be supposed, then, to reveal him 
as he is? [Certainly.] Would the great I Am make 
to his creatures a false representation of himself? [By 
no means. It is not the Sateen but scholastic phi- 
‘losophy that has made ‘‘a false representation” of 
God.] | Would he make a representation by which 
ninety-nine hundredths of his professed followers, from 
the time of the revelation to the present hour, have 
‘been deceived 2? No: the Bible never deceived one of 
them. It deceived them no more than it deceived the 
rejecters of the Copernican system of astronomy $ 
which was believed to be contrary to the obvious mean- 
ing of the Bible. It deceived them no more than it 
deceived believers in witchcraft; because it is written, 
‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ;?? (Ex. 22:18;) 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY.» 103 


and, “ There shall not be found among you... .. a 
witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, 
or a wizard, or a necromancer.” (Deut. 18 : 10, 11.) 
How natural for both of these classes of persons to. 
reason: ‘‘ Would the great I Am make a false repre- 
sentation”? of his works, any more than “ of himself 2”? 
- Would he “ make a false representation’? of the state 
of things which was, or was to be, among his own pco- 
ple, and among other nations of the world; or of the 
proper method of treating those who professed to be, 
or were accused’ of being, “ consulters with familiar 
spirits?” ° It was an unfair inference from what was 
yevealed. The Bible did not deceive ‘the “* professed’ 
followers”? of Christ; but their ¢eachers unwittingly, 
and their philosophy deceived them. The Bible re- 
yeals God in his attributes and relations ;—ecnough for 
us to know, it would seem from his own revelation, in 
order that we may understand and do our duty ;—but 
the philosophy of the schools represents him as existing 
in wnrevealed, and therefore unauthorized “ substan- 
tial distinctions’? —“ or distinct persons’’—“ in the one 
undivided essence of” his being. Yes, scholastic phi- 
losophy; overstepping the boundaries of human know- 
ledge as fixed by revelation, and entering, through its 
own interpretation of the written word, the secret ‘re- 
cesses of God’s essential being—that Holtest of Holies, 
which no created intelligence is competent to survey or 
reveal—this philosophy presumes to explain the mode 
of his existence. The mode of his existence! Who 
knows the real, hidden import of such language? Who 


104 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


knows the mode of his own existence? The mode of 
his existence—that awful secret kept within Himself— 
what human tongue can tell? But the doctors taught 
this unauthorized, presumptuous, and dark philosophy ; 
and yet the “ doctors disagreed”? among themselves, as 
to the meaning of “some learned distinctions which 
they regarded as true,” quarreled about “ their philo- 
sophical theories,’ denounced one another as “here- 
tics,” excluded one another ‘from salvation,’’ perse- 


cuted and killed one another. In their zeal for their 


own peculiar views, they failed to participate, as they 
might have done, in ‘‘ the undeserved benefits’? result- 
ing from a practical belief of what God has revealed 
respecting the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and ex- 
hibited anything but the spirit of the gospel—all this, 
to maintain what they considered the truth, respecting 
the mode of the Divine existence! 

Further : Suppose it to be true, as this Professor 
thinks it is, that “ninety-nine hundredths”? of the pro- 
fessed followers of Christ have believed in the common 
theory of the Trinity; what does this prove ?—that it 
is taught in the Scriptures? or if not, that the Bible 
has deceived them? About the same proportion that 
have received this theory, have also received the theories 
of “eternal generation”? and “‘ eternal procession ;7? 
and a very large proportion of these have received, in 
addition, the theory of “‘ transubstantiation.’? Does this 
Professor receive these doctrines as true,—all, or any 
of them,—because “‘ ninety-nine hundredths,” or some 
other large majority, of the visible church have “so 


7 rc 4, ~ 
Bn ae ye Ones Pee ee) ae ee 


a a Ee Va Se an 


er Set eee 
a i a ee Oe 


ONES ie oN, eet a ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 105 


understood the subject??? We suppose he does not; 
or did not. If so, then the very argument he urges 
for eternal distinction, and seems to consider wnanswer- 
able, he totally disregards, in reference to eternal gene- 
ration and eternal procession. His argument, if good 
for anything, proves these doctrines to be true ; for, if 
they are not true, much the largest part of the professed 
followers of Christ have been deceived. 

But this is not all. The representation seems to be, 
that this “ninety-nine hundredths” of the visible 
church have been deceived by a careful examinatior 
of the Scriptures. How else could this “ revelation of 
God” have deceived them? But, from the days of the 
apostles to the time when the art of printing was dis- 
covered, how many of the professed followers of Christ, 
compared with the whole number, ever read the Scrip- 
tures at all? Probably not one ina thousand. How, 
then, could the Bible have deceived them? Not at all, 
by its direct teaching ; but simply through their relt- 
gious teachers, most of whom received this theory from 
Creeds and Councils—‘‘ men, who made no proper use 
of the Bible in their studies—who speculated, daringly, 
recklessly about God and things Divine.”’ Shut out in 
a great measure from the world as it is, “and having 
little experience of the real wants of men,..... 
they gave themselves up to speculation,-as the ultimate 
end of their intellectual existence.”? Not only before, 
but long after the first printing of the word of God, 
~ (and would that we could say it is not extensively true 


even now!) both preachers and hearers looked at the 
fi 


106 A BIBLICAL TRINITY: 


Scriptures, when their speculations did not take the 
place of revealed truth, through the medium of a false 
philosophy, and they saw not the truth as it is. Nay; 
they were long forbidden—as we have seen—by the 
most stringent human laws, to depart from the lan- 
guage or the proper meaning of the terms in which 
these speculations had for centuries been embodied. 
And when such laws have not been in force, many other 
influences, not less powerful, have operated to produce 
substantially the same results. _ | 

The same kind of influence still exists and operates, 
in various portions of the church. We read in a reli- 


gious paper, not long since, that the Rey. Dr. ~, 
of - -, at his inauguration as Professor in a Theo- 


logical Seminary, “‘ presented himself before the con- 
grégation, and read the form of assent to the Confession - 
of Faith of the’ — Church, and affixed his signa- 
ture to a solemn ‘pledge, to teach nothing contrary 
thereto.’ Suppose this learned and able Professor, in 
his future investigations’ of the Scriptures, should be 
convinced that some of the philosophy of the Confession 
of Faith is unsound, and inconsistent with the Bible 
and ‘conimion sense ;—what is he to do? He must 
either conceal his real convictions of the truth, and 
teach nothing on the subject; or resign, and receivé 
the opprobrium—if nothing more—of his brethren very 
extensively.- Is the pledge, in such a form, consistent 
with freedom of thought and of investigation, or with 
the rights of conscience? He may not inquire what 
the Scriptures teach, but what the Confession of 


A BIBLICAL .TRINITY. 107 


Faith—what “the church’? teaches. How does this 
differ, 1s principe, from what Protestants condemn 
in the Romish church, as to the right of every man to — 
examine the Scriptures for himself, and to receive as 
Divine truth, whatever he, in his own conscience, be- 
lieves' to be there taught? Whatever else such a 
pledge is, or is not, it is a Bar to freedom of thought 
and investigation, and to the reception and setting forth 
of that which, it is honestly believed, the Scriptures 
plainly teach. This is oné means by which the com- 
mon theory of the Trinity has been so long and so ex- 
tensively maintained. 
Thus it has come’to pass, from various causes, that 
“s6 the church has always: understood the subject.” 
It seems hardly possible to‘make a sober statement, in 
its proper meaning, more adverse to the truth, or an 
argument more radi¢ally unsound, than the statement 
and the argument we have now been considering. 

We have a few things-more to say of the Monothe- 
istic form of the common ‘theory of the Trinity, com- 
pared with a Biblical Trinity. If we have a correct 
understanding of the subject, that form, stripped of its 
inetaphysical and apparently unintelligible technicali- 
ties, do¢és not differ materially from the simple Trmity 
of the Scriptures, as set forth'on the preceding pages. 

Prof. Stuart has well expressed it, when he says he 
believes, “1. That God is one, numerically one, in 
essence and attributes. In other words, the infinitely 
perfect Spirit, the Creator and Preserver of all things, 
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, has nwmerically the 


108 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


same essence, and the same perfections, so far as they 
are known to us. ‘To particularize : the Son possesses” 
not simply a similar or equal essence and perfections, 
but numerically the same as the Father, without divi- 
sion, and without multiplication. 2. The Son (and 
also the Holy Spirit) does, in some respect truly and 
really, not merely nominally and logically, differ from 
the Father.”’* By saying ‘ that God is one,’? he - 
means, ‘*that there is in him only one intelligent ~ 
agent.”+ When he speaks of ‘distinctions in the 
Godhead,” (which we have already considered,) ‘ the 
nature of which is unknown to us, and the actual ex- 
istence of which is proved by the authority of the 
Scriptures only ;?’+ we suppose he means, that they 
are proved by inference from various passages, and 
from the use of the pronouns, I, Thou, He—which will 
be considered hereafter. Again he says; ‘‘ Nor is it 
within the compass of any effort that my mind can 
make, to conceive how numerical sameness of substance 
and attribute, is compatible with distinct conscious- 
nesses, wills, and affections.’’t | 

What light does all this cast upon the theoretic dis- 
tinction of three Persons in the yature of the Godhead 
itself? ‘* There is in him only one intelligent agent’? 
—denominated the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— 
with one set of Divine attributes; any one of these 
Persons ‘* possessing not simply a similar or equal 
essence and perfections,”’ to either of the others, “‘ but 


* Miscellanies, p. 18. t+ Id., p. 42. t Id., p. 63. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 109 


numerically the same, without division, and without 
multiplication.””> They do, ‘Sin some respects truly 


and really, not merely nominally or logically, differ _ 


from’’ one another; as noticed at the commencement 
of this chapter. This ‘‘ one agent,’’ with one set of 
attributes common to the three Persons, acts as the 
Father—is the Father. This ‘one agent,?’ with 
numerically the same (not similar or equal) attributes, 
acts as the Son—is the Son.* ‘This ‘‘ one agent,”’ 
with numerically the same attributes, acts as the Holy 
Spirit—is the Holy Spirit. It must be so, according 
to the Monotheistic form of the common theory, or there 
are two agents without the attributes essential to an 
intelligent, holy agent ; whether finite or infinite. The 
Father is represented as loving the Son, [is reference 
here had to his Divine nature 2] and the Son as loving 
the Father; the Holy Spirit as loving both, and they 
him, with numerically the same affections, ‘* without 
division, and without multiplication.”” But we have 
been able to find no passages of Scripture m which the 
Father is represented as loving the Holy Spirit, or the 
Holy Spirit the Father ; but many passages, in which 
the Father is represented as loving his only begotten 
Son—the Messiah—*“‘ the Mediator between God and 
men, the man Christ Jesus ;”? and this Son, as loving 
the Father. 

How, then, does this representation of the Mono- 
theistic form of the common theory, differ from that 


* Using the term Son as a proper aes according to the explana- 
tion before given. 


110 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


which has been presented in the preceding pages, oF a 
to conceive of any  didsheres: save in words, in meta- 
physical terms used to express a mere human theory, 
invented long ago, and from time to time, modified till 
it has come into a shape differing little, if at all, eX- 
cept in these metaphysical and unintelligible terms, 
from the simple Trinity of the Scriptures. “ One in- 
telligent agent,” in the exercise of ‘ nwmerically the 
same perfections,”? acting in different capacities and re- 
lations, as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— God, 
only in his relation to us and the creation around us, God 
as developed by his attributes’’?*—seems to be the one 
only living and true God, who is revealed to us in the 
Scriptures ; ; without including distinctions in the very 
nature of the Godhead itself. These distinctions, if 
they really exist, are unrevealed except by inference, 
far-fetched and fanciful ; unknown as to their nature 
—unknown as to what shed really are ; beyond the 
reach of human knowledge ; and unauthorized by the 
Scriptures. ; on 
Then let us drop these unknown, unintelligible, 
merely inferential, and scholastic distinctions ; and re- 
tain simply what the Bible plainly reveals to us of God, 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and we have 
left, the simple Trinity of the Scriptures—without 
theory, without metaphysics, and adapted to “‘ the com- 
mon mind,”? to which God has made a revelation of 


* Stuart on Heb. v. 2, p. 315. 


a) ao 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 411 


himself with reference to the work of man’s redemp- 
tion. Here we leave the Monotheistic form of the 
common theory of the Trinity with the ‘common sense 
of the Christian community. 

We now proceed to consider, more particularly, the 
Tritheistic form of the common theory of the Trinity. 
How extensively this is held by theologians of the pre- 
sent day it would be somewhat difficult to ascertain. 
One author* remarks: ‘“‘ Trinitarians have’ said,'a 
thousand times, that they use’ the word’ Person not 
Sipe. as denoting a perfectly distinct conscious- 
ness, understanding, and will.”” If not ‘‘ perfectly dis- 
tinct,’’ how distinct is it? What is it short of perfec> 
tion? But others have'said, a great many times,— 
for we have not counted them,—that they do hold it: 
That this form of the common theory is held by a large 
portion of the Christian church seems to admit of ‘no 
question.” Those especially who receive what is tech- 
nically called ‘the: Covenant - of Redemption??—a 
theory yet to ‘be considered—would seem ‘to hold it as 
a matter of course. For, such a transaction as that 
is reptesented to: have been, between three Persons, 
having one ‘set of’ Divine attributes 7m common, seems 
to be something more than ‘a faa aah ab- 
surdity. eae 2 

Dr. Doddridge in his lectures, giving an account of 
the manner in which the Trinity has been held by dis- 
tinguished theologians, says: ‘‘Mr. Howe [Rev. John 


* Dr. Pond. 


112 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Howe] seems to suppose, that there are three distinct, 
eternal spirits, or distinct intelligent hypostases, each 
having his own distinct, singular, intelligent nature, 
united in such an inexplicable manner, as that upon 
account of their perfect harmony, consent, and affec- 
tion, to which he adds their mutual self-consciousness, 
they may be called the one God, as properly as the 
different corporeal, sensitive, and intellectual natures 
united, may be called one man. 

‘“* Dr. Waterland, Dr. Ab. Taylor, with the rest of 
the Athanasians, assert three proper distinct Persons, 
entirely equal to and independent upon each other, yet 
making up one and the same being. 

** Bishop Pearson, with whom Bishop Bull also 
agrees, is of opinion, that though God the Father is 
the fountain of the Deity, the whole Divine nature is 
communicated from the Father to the Son, and from 
both to the Spirit; yet so as that the Father and Son 
are not separate or separable from the Divinity, but do 
still exist in it, and are most intimately united to” it. 
This was likewise Dr. Owen’s scheme.’’* 

Those who .can. receive such ‘‘inexplicable,”’ unre- 
vealed, and contradictory statements for Divine ver- 
ities, and take shelter under the shadow of a mystery 
of their own creating, ‘‘ charging it all to the weakness 
of our understanding, and not to the absurdity of the 
doctrine” or statement ‘“‘ itself,’ are prepared to re- 
ceive almost anything for revealed truth. 


* Lectures, 2d ed. London, 1776, pp. 402, 3. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 113 


Dr. Barrow, in his Defense of the Trinity, remarks 
—and the statement has been sanctioned by Richard 
Watson, as being ‘‘ well expressed, by as great a mas- 
ter of reason and science.as he was of theology’?—that 
“there is one Divine nature or essence, common unto 
three Persons incomprehensibly united, and ineffably 
distinguished ; [who knows that ?] united in essential 
attributes, distinguished by peculiar idioms and rela- 
tions ; all equally infinite in every Divine perfection, 
each different from the other in order and manner of — 
subsistence ; [where is that revealed ?] that there is a 
mutual existence of one in all, and all in one; a com- 
munication [an eternal communication ?] without any 
deprivation or diminution in the communicant; an eter- 
nal generation, and an eternal procession without pre- 
cedence or succession, without proper causality or de- 
pendence; a I'ather imparting his own, and a Son 
receiving his Father’s life; and a Spirit issuing from 
both, without any division or multiplication of essence.”’ 
How far does this come short of an infinite absurdity, 
and ‘‘an eternal contradiction??? The same writer 
adds: ‘* These are notions which may well puzzle our 
reason in conceiving how they agree ; [exactly so;] 
but ought not to stagger our faith in asserting that 
they are true.’? What, then, cannot be made out 
from the Bible, and received as Divine verity? The 
venerable Dr. Woods very justly remarks, (Works, 
vy. i. p. 442,) that “the test, by which we must deter- 
mine the truth or falsehood of any statement of this 
doctrine, or any theory respecting it, is the word of 


/ 


114 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


God. > As the theory or ‘statement above eC gives an 
unnatural and forced construction to those texts which 
relate to it, we certainly cannot receive it.?? 

In “a sermon on the doctrine of the Trinity, preach- 
ed by one of the most eminent and venerable of living 
theologians,” of our own country, it was stated »—as 
reported in The Independent for Aug. 2, 1849 ,—that 
“the personality of the Son as distinct from that of 
the Father on the one hand, and from that of the Holy 
Spirit on the other, is just the same thing, Just as com- 
plete, just as definite as the personality of one man in | 
distinction from that of other men. Each of the three 
Persons is a distinct and complete moral agent, having 
his own distinct understanding, will and consciousness. 
To prove that this is what is meant by ‘ Persons’ in 
the Trinity, it is only necessary to remember that 
when we conceive of Peter, James, and John as per- 
sons, we conceive of them as being each a distinct and 
complete moral agent, and as having each his own dis- 
tinct powers and faculties of moral agency. The three 
Persons, then, according to this definition, were in 
every intelligible sense three Gods; and accordingly, 
that identical phrase, ‘ three Gods,’ was used by the 
preacher, more than once or twice—whether deliberately 
or inadvertantly we cannot tell-——as the aptest formula 
to express his doctrine of three Divine Persons.”’ ? 

The preacher ete explained to the reporter, 
that his statement was ‘misunderstood, ? and that 
‘the words were extempore, and from their liability to 
misapprehension as tritheistic, were not wisely chosen.”? 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 115 


We hardly expected this, in a discourse prepared with 
so much forethought, from one who had spent so many 
years in studying and teaching theology. Notwith- 
standing this disclaimer of intentional tritheism,— 
which no one supposes,—the above premises—“ each 
of the three Persons, a distinct and complete moral 
agent, having his own distinct understanding, will and 
A abancnes like ‘Peter, James, and cine 
sent to us ‘‘in every intelligible sense, three Gods.’ 
This is the fair and logical deduction. A clear and ac- 
tive mind would perceive this result—quick and clear as 
a flash of light—and an ingenuous one, off tts guard, 
bring it out as the inevitable result of the premises, 
and say fearlessly and truly that the three Persons are 
“three Gods ;?? though on a sober second thought, 
such a mind would perceive the slip, and be very likely 
to draw back. But if the preacher ‘was not there, 
when the [reporter’s] lash fell,”? his premises were 
there, and the logical conclusion close by their side to 
share their fate. It is better not to propound a use- 
less theory which is “not directly taught in the Serip- 
tures,” for the sake of getting as far as possible from 
an alleged “‘heresy ;?? and safer for both parties to keep 
close to the Bible; then there will be no heresy to be 
rebutted, or “ tritheism repudiated.” 

In The Congregationalist for Aug. 17, 1849, there 
is a report of a sermon on the subject of the Trinity, 
preached in Boston on the previous Sabbath, by the 
worthy and venerable Dr. Lyman Beecher. It is given 


116 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


us by a competent and responsible reporter ;* and we 
may be sure, in ¢Ais instance, that we have the sense 
of the preacher. 

‘“‘ His first object was to define personality. As 
used among men, it is applied only to beings possessing 
intelligence, will and affections—the essential elements 
of free agency and accountability as subjects of law 
and moral government. Material things and animals 
are never called persons. 

“‘ He concluded that the word person is not in the 
Bible applied to the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but 
asserted and proved that all the elements of personality 
as above defined were ascribed to each of them. To 
each is ascribed a separate intellect, will, affections, 
and actions. ‘The Father sent the Son [as to his Di- 
vine nature ?] to be the propitiation for our sins. 
The Son left the bosom of the Father. He was with 
God, he was God, he made all things, he became flesh 
and dwelt among us.” . 
Where is it revealed that “the Son left the bosom 
of the Father ?’”? It is written, ‘‘ The only begotten 
Son, who 1s in the bosom of the Father’’—who is pre- 
éminently beloved and honored of the Father—who 
occupies the highest place of honor, friendship, inti- 
macy, and affection. This is. evidently spoken of the 
Messiah—the Son of God after the incarnation—“ the 
man Christ Jesus.’ Was he not greatly honored in 
being appointed and sent forth as “‘ the Mediator be- 


eo 


* Dr. Edward Beecher, one of the editors of that paper. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 117 


tween God and men?”? While executing his commis- 
sion here on earth, did he not enjoy in a very high 
degree the friendship, intimacy, and affection of the 
Father? ‘The language in question is never applied to | 
the Logos, or the Word—the Divine nature of Christ 
before the incarnation ; but to the Son of God since 
that event. There never was a time after the child 
Jesus was born till the Son of God expired on the 
cross, never since this event, and we may well be 
assured there never will be a period in all coming ages, 
when the Son is not “in the bosom of the Father.” 
To say, then, that ‘the Son left the bosom of the Fa- 
ther,”’ is a supplement to Divine revelation. 

It is said above, ‘‘ He (the Son) was with God, 
Tee he became flesh and dwelt among us.”? In 
the Bible it is; ‘‘ The Logos—the Word was with 
God. The same was in the beginning with God. 
The Word became flesh.’? But none of these things 
are said of the Son of God. The Scriptures do not so 
use that term. If we use it so, it must be used simply 
as a proper name, referring to his Divine nature, and 
meaning the same as the Logos, or the Word. But if 
it is used above, as it appears to be, to designate him 
as in reality the Son in his Divine nature—the com- 
panion of the Father in eternity—this is not so re- 
vealed. If it be true, we must wait for another revela- 
tion to teach it to us, before we are authorized to affirm 
it as Divine verity. Dr. George Hill, late Principal of 
St. Mary’s College at St. Andrew’s in Scotland, in his 


118 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


‘¢ Lectures in Divinity”? remarks ;* “In the language 
of the New Testament, the Christ, or Messiah, and 
the Son of God, are used. as, equivalent, interchange- 
able terms.”? So we regard it. 

But further, from the report of the sermon. “ All 
the attributes which constitute a real Divine personality 
are so ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy. 
Spirit, as agents distinct from each other, that were 
there no doctrine of a Unity of the three taught, there 
would be evidence of the existence of three distinct and 
wholly independent Gods. The personality ascribed 
to them is a full and perfect personality. The per- 
sonality is more clearly, definitely and practically re- 
vealed, than the unity of the Godhead. Each person 
has his own sphere in the work of redemption, each is 
worshiped, as God—and each regards the others with 
infinite affection.”’ ! 

‘‘ They are united in ends, feelings, and plans; but 
there is a higher unity than this. It is a unity that 
averts the idea of tritheism, and makes the three 
persons but one being, one God. But what-is that by 
which this unity is effected? Whether it is called 
essence, or substance, or substratum, it is something the 
nature of which is not revealed. Its effect is revealed; 
it unites the three persons in one God.’’ 

‘* Finally, he set forth in a most impressive light 
the delightful view given by this doctrine, of infinitely 
blessed society in the Divine mind. The idea of an 


* Philadelphia ed. 1844, p. 249. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. “119 


infinite solitary being, devoid of all society of his own 
grade, is painful and chilling to the mind. Creatures 
cannot ever become the peers of God, or fully meet the 
social wants of his infinite nature. In the Trinity, 


these wants are met and fully satisfied. We rejoice in ~ 


the j joy of God, and feel that his j joy is full.” 

We have now the Tritheistic form of the common 
theory of the Trinity, pretty fully and clearly set before 
us. But, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1849, 
there is an elaborate article on the Trinity, by Dr. 
Edward Beecher of Boston, Massachusetts, containing 
a more full development of this Tritheistic theory, than 
is contained in his report of the sermon of his vene- 
rable and ever-to-be venerated father, in part just 
quoted ; from which article we make a few extracts. 
‘They will be chiefly taken from pages 728-732. 

The author of the article says, that his ‘‘mode of 
reasoning ig strictly philosophical ;”? because, “‘in the 
natural world, that theory is held to be true which ac- 
counts for all the facts and gives harmony to the sys- 
tem.”” He thinks that the theory of the Trinity which 
he advocates “ gives an easy and adequate account of 
all these facts, and unites all parts of the Bible in one 
system. It is therefore true. On all sound principles 
of reasoning it must be true.” | 

But all the facts are fully accounted. foes in the 
Scriptures, without any theory at all. It is no theory 
that God has revealed himself as the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit. It is a well attested fact ; and 
it is much more ** philosophical’’—aye, reverential— 


an 


120 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


to leave it where God has left it, than to undertake to 
explain his wnrevealed nature by applying to the de- 
velopments he has made of himself, such philosophy as 
darkens what he has made plain. God has told us, 
with sufficient plainness, that he has so revealed him- 
self, to glorify himself in the salvation of men and in 
promoting the welfare of his great kingdom. This 
‘“ gives an easy and adequate account of all these facts, 
and unites all parts of the Bible in one system.”? Such 
presumptuous philosophy, therefore, as ventures beyond 
the boundaries of human knowledge in ra to explain 
the mode of the Divine existence, “on all sound 
principles of reasoning”? in such matters, “must be”? 
false. 

“Tt (this doctrine or theory) consists in the great, 
simple, majestic fact of infinite tripersonality.”? This 
is similar to the statement made on the same subject, 
by the seven authors of a Review (of whom the writer 
of the article in question is one) in The Christian Ob- 
servatory for June, 1849, p. 268: “That which dis- 
tinguishes a Trinitarian from a Unitarian is this: A 
belief in an original three-foldness in the nature. of 
God.” As to this grand distinction of “a Trinitarian 
from a Unitarian’’—this exaltation of a theory to an 
eminence above great and momentous truths clearly 
revealed,—we have already remarked in this chapter ; 
and those remarks apply equally to the statement just 
quoted. All the truths of the Bible can stand better— 
with far less incumbrance—without this theory than 
with it. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY.: 121 


Further, from the.article in the Repository. “ But 
while we decline to adopt the generation and procession 
development of antiquity, we are free to confess that we | 
prefer it to the ground assumed by some, that we do 
not know what person means, in the doctrine of the 
Trinity, and that it is some unknown, three-fold distinc- 
tion in a God whose essence, will, and attributes are 
one. This is not what the Bible reveals... .. . - 
Its natural development is Sabellianism. . ... . 
It (the generation and procession development) pre- 
sented, in its full power, the great idea of tripersonality 
in God.” 

‘¢ Absolute, unmitigated personal unity in an infinite 
mind, is a cold, unsocial idea. ....... The 
desire of an equal to love, does not strike us as an im- 
perfection in an infinite person; nay, it would seem to 
us imperfect without it. If this is so, what would be 
the social state of an infinite, eternal, solitary mind 2 
Who, in the universe, could worthily understand and 
reciprocate the love of an infinite heart? Toward 
whom could such a heart overflow?” After expanding 
these thoughts in application to the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, as “three infinite, self-existent,”? com- 
panionable ‘minds,”’ or spirits, the writer speaks “ of 
delightful intercourse, and of perfect unity in thought, 
feeling, plans and action, between the blessed persons 
of the Trinity. 

“These ideas lie on the face of the Scriptures. 
[Just as green lies on the face of the paper that is seen 


through green glasses. | They are the very things that 
6 


122 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


affect the mind. [So-do the fancy and the imagination 
affect the mind; not only in natural, but in spiritual 
things.] They are involved m any clear view of the 
plan of redemption. [Not exactly so; but those things 
are involved in the plan of redemption whieh Gop has 
revealed of himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spi- 
rit.| They are essential to any definite and affecting 
conception of the love of God. [But multitudes have 
had ‘definite and affecting conceptions of that love,” 
who did not entertain the views of this writer ; and 
therefore they.are not “ essential.”?} When it is said 
of the Father, that he spared not his own Son, [the 
Logos—the Divine nature of Christ 2] but gave him up 
for us all, and that he so loved the world that he gave 
his only begotten Son ; our whole power to feel or mea- 
sure the love of God, lies in the reality which we at- 
tach to their separate personality and ardent mutual 
love.”’ 

<< We would much sooner believe in three separate, 
infinite, self-existent spirits, [but he does believe in 
‘three such spirits, or “‘ minds,” supposed to be united 
‘1a scholastic substratum,] than in one solitary God, 
who in the wide universe could find no equal to love.” 

‘We reject tritheism because it 1s not a fact ;—be- 
cause the Bible does not teach it, but rather the essen- 
tial unity of God. | 

“ But we are free to confess that such an idea of 
trstheism as we can form, would be far better to us than 
such unity, as leaves only a Sabellian Trinity as its 
ultimate logical development. [We would much rather 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 123 


believe in the God revealed in the Bible, than either “ 
of them; or in any scholastic theory.] There is some- | 
thing lovely, affecting, sublime, in the mutual love and 
perfect social intercourse of three infinite, self-existent 
minds.”? But is there not something much more “‘ love- 
ly, affecting, sublime, in the mutual love and perfect 
social intercourse of” thirty thousand “‘ infinite, self- 
existent minds ?”? Exactly ten thousand times more so. 
The latter is ‘‘ the great idea,” after all—if we are to 
follow our own views of what is “‘ lovely, affecting, sub- 
lime,”? in God, rather than what he has revealed of — 
himself in his holy word. 

The writer adds, toward the close of his article, 
‘From all human speculation in the annunciation of 
the Trinity as a revealed doctrine, we abstain.”’ But, 
if the preceding statements developing the Tritheistic 
theory of the Trinity, do not contain ‘ speculation” — 
the most daring, presumptuous, audacious, and be- 
nighted—we should not know where to look for it; 
unless it be, in ancient or modern pantheism, or in the 
vagaries of Swedenborg. Why! compared with a part 
of the foregoing statements, some of the very heathen 
were more consistent, and more scriptural too, in their 
‘views of God. Horace says of Jupiter, the father of 
the gods and of men: “nec aut simile, aut secun- 
dum”’—there is nothing like him, or second to him. 

The main topics to be discussed, in considering this 
Tritheistic theory of the Trinity and its claims to be 
received as truth, —revealed or unrevealed,—are the 
following : ; 


124 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


1. That there are in God “three infinite, self- 
existent minds,” or “three distinct and competent 
moral agents,’’ called “* Persons,” with three sets of 
Divine attributes. 

2. That.these three infinite, self-existent minds, or 
distinct. and competent moral agents, are so united in 
one “‘ essence, substance, or substratum,’’ as to consti- 
tute one Divine Spirit, or Being. “‘ It unites the three 
Persons in one God.” 

3. That these three infinite, self-existent minds, or 
‘“* Peers of God,’? furnish the great Jehovah with 
“infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind,?— 
“* society of his own grade ;”? these separate and mutual 
Divine conditions being essential to “‘ any clear view of 
the plan of redemption,” to “ fully meet the social 
wants of his infinite nature,” to “‘ the mutual love” of 
the Persons of the Godhead, and to their individual 
and joint felicity. 

1. How does it appear, that there are ‘‘ three infi- 
nite, self-existent minds’?—“ an original three-foldness 
in the nature of God,’’—“‘ three distinct and compe- 
tent moral agents, each having his own distinct under- 
standing, will, and consciousness,”’ or “a separate in- 
tellect, will, affections, and actions,”’ and all the attri- 
butes of the Godhead? It is not quite so clear as some 
seem to suppose, that all this is revealed in the Bible. 

But we are told, (Bib. Repos.) that this theory 
[‘‘ fact ???] is taught in ‘‘ those texts which imply or 
teach a plurality of persons in the Godhead ;??—such 
as the following: Gen. 1 : 26; Let us make man in 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 125 


our image, after our likeness. 8:22; Behold, the — 
man is become as one of us. 11:17; Let ws go down 
and see. Deut. 6:4; Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our 
God (literally Gods) is one Jehovah. Isa. 6:8; I 
heard the voice of Jehovah, saying, Whom shall I send, 
and who will go for us? : 

We had supposed that all able, thorough, and judi- 
cious critics had done quoting these and such like pas- 
sages, as proof in the case, long ago. But almost any- 
thing, to prop up a tottering theory, which many intel- 
ligent Christians rather regard as a public nuisance to 
be abated. 

Waving our own remarks for the present, we quote 
those of Prof. Stuart, on this point :* ‘‘ Nor does the 
appeal to the plural forms of expression in the Old 
Testament justify the modes of representation in ques- 
tion; [viz. ‘‘ society, and covenanting transactions, 
and deliberative counsel, and the like, in the Godhead 
itself ;’] such as, ‘ Let us make man; Let us go down 
and see; The man is become as one of us; Who will 
go for us? and ‘the like. All these modes of ex- 
pression seem naturally to spring from the almost con- 
tinual use of the plural form Elohim, as the name of 
God. But he who has well studied the genius of the 
Hebrew language, must know that this often makes an 
intensitive signification of words by employing the 
plural number ; and particularly that this is the fact in 
regard to words designating dominion, lordship, ete. 


* Bib. Repos. July, 1835, pp. 102, 3. 


AQ6 hit A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Such is the case not only with Elohim, but also with 
_ many others, even when they designate single objects. 
Elohim, is for the most part as much as to say, su- 
preme God. But if any still insist on the argument 
to be drawn from this, as evincing of itself a plurality 
in the Godhead, what shall be said of its use in Ps. 
45: 6, '7, where first the Son and then the Father is 
each respectively called Elohim ? Is there then a 
plurality of persons in the Son, and in the Father too ? 

‘It is then on the ground of this plurality as to 
form in the name of God, that we may most naturally 
account for such modes of expression as, ‘Let us 
make man,’ etc. At all events, the subject of such 
plurality of names is encompassed with so many diffi- 
culties, when viewed in any other light, that nothing 
positive can safely be built upon it, in respect to plu- 
rality in the Godhead; an expression, by the way, 
against which the graver or more cautious writers on 
the subject of the Trinity are often warning us, because 
of its polytheistic aspect.”’ Sate 

Prof. Knapp also remarks,* respecting the ancient 
use of the word before us, (Elohim,) that it is derived 
from an Arabic word, which signifies to reverence, to 
honor, to worship. ‘‘ Hence (he says) it comes to pass 
that it is frequently applied to kings, magistrates, 
judges, and others to whom reverence is shown, and 
who are regarded as the representatives of the Deity 
npon earths Paes sO. Pie, 2 de ee ae The 


* Theology, p. 93. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 127 


plural of this word, Elohim, although it denotes but 
one subject, is appropriately used to designate Jeho- 
vah by way of eminence. In this fact, many theolo- 
gians have thought they perceived an allusion to the 
doctrine of the Trinity, though they have no sufficient 
ground for supposing that. this doctrine was known at 
so early a period. And without resorting to this sup- 
position, the application of this plural name to a singu- 
lar subject may be explained from an idiom of the 
ancient oriental and some other languages, by which 
anything great or eminent was expressed in the plural 
number, (pluralis dignitatis, or majestaticus.) Ac- 
cordingly, Eloha, (the singular,) augustus, [majestic, | 
may be considered as the positive degree, of which 
Elohim, (the plural,) augustissimus, [most majestic, | 
is the superlative.”’ 

We have here the critical judgment—with reasons 
hard to gainsay—of two eminent Biblical scholars, one 
from the Western and one from the Eastern continent, 
in regard to the evidence of a plurality of persons in 
the nature of God, to be derived from ‘the plural 
forms of expression in the Old Testament.’? This, 
perhaps, is sufficient. Much more need not be said 
on this point ; but we will add a few things. 

‘* And Ged said, Let us make man in our image, after 
our likeness. So God created man in HIs own image.”’ 
This language is understood to express determination, 
— And God determined to make man in his own im- 
age, after his own likeness,’’—without supposing that 
he also intended to teach us thereby, the mode of his 


128 | A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


existence. ‘* God said,’’ is a form of expression used 
throughout the narrative: “‘ God said, Let there be 
light, and there was light?—‘ God determined to cre- 
ate light, and light was.? Does the language require 
us to believe that he literally spake thus? or simply 
that such was his determination, consequent upon 
which the thing existed? ‘God determined to make 
man. So God created man.’ The Scriptures usually 
speak of God very much after the manner of men; as 
having eyes, ears, a mouth, a hand, an arm ; as seeing, 
hearing, speaking, walking, stretching out his hand. 
It is said; ‘‘ God came from Teman—he had horns 
coming out his hand—thou didst ride upon thine horses 
_ —thou didst march through the land in indignation— 
thou didst walk through the sea with thine horses, 
through the heap of great waters—he put on righteous- 
ness as a breast-plate, and an helmet of salvation upon 
his head ; and he put on the garments of vengeance for 
clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.”’? Yet we 
. are not to construe these expressions literally ; but to 
seek out their true sense—the truth—intended to be 
communicated by the terms. When a man is about to 
do an important thing, and wishes to proceed with de- 
liberation and act with discretion, he considers with 
himself, and perhaps speaks audibly: ‘‘ Let us con- 
sider—let us see what to do.?? When he has deter- 
mined on the thing, he may speak out; and say: ‘I 
will do this, or that.”? But in so saying, he does not 
intend to tell us anything as to the origin or mode of hig 
existence. He is deliberating, so as to come to a wise 


_ A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 129 


determination. That is the object of his method of 
proceeding. 

God does not, like man, need to jeperuter i in order 
to act wisely—at least, he has not told us so; but 
he makes himself and his doings known to us in lan- 
guage conformed to the manner of men; leaving it for 
common sense to decide as to the meaning of what he 
says of himself, for the express purpose of being un- 
derstood—not for the purpose of casting a mist before 
our eyes, so that we cannot see what he means—not to 
cause contention, uncharitableness, alienation and dis- 
cord among those whom he would teach the knowledge 
of himself and his works. God seems, by the language 
under consideration, to have intended to teach us, that 
he came to a wise determination in respect to man’s 
creation—that man is the product of Divine wisdom, 
as well as power. 

But it is claimed that the plural form in Hebrew, 
Elohim, teaches this doctrine of tripersonality in the 
nature of God. Why then does not the same plural 
form in Ex. 21:4, 6, denote plurality of persons 
in man? “If his master [adonim, masters] have 
given him a wife,?? &c. ‘* Then his master [plural, 
masters| shall bring him unto the judges ; [elohim, 
gods—magistrates;] ..... and his master [ado- 
nim, masters] shall bore,”? &c. How would it sound, 
if these plurals were rendered into English ? Quite 
as well as to ‘‘ call Charlemagne the great emperors, 
to denote his special dignity !’? (Bib. Repos. p. 715 5) 
or to say in English, ‘ Jehovah our Gods is one Je- 


130 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


hovah.”? This mode of expression accords with the 
Hebrew idiom, but not with the English; and there- 
fore to put that idiom into English in order to render 
it ridiculous, is not fair or sound argumentation. The 
plural pronoun is used, not only in Hebrew but in 
English, as it is in the question, ‘“‘ Who will go for 
us ??? but not the plural name. Thus it is in the 
forms of royalty; as we remember to have read in 
our boyhood: ‘* Wer by the grace of God, 
king [not kings| of Great Britain, France and Ire- 
land, defender [not defenders| of the faith,’’ etc. This 
idiom is common—not to say universal—with editors 


(sole editors) and writers of reviews; and that too 
with the discrimination just noticed. Nay; this very 
writer of the article in question has observed it him- 
self, p. 791: ‘So far as the wants of owr own mind 
[not minds] are concerned, we would much sooner be-. 
lieve in three separate, infinite, self-existent spirits,”’ 
&c. He may say we, and our ; but to speak of his 
own minds, “‘ to denote special dignity,” is as far from 


¢ 


being idiomatic, as “‘ calling Charlemagne the great 
emperors.” 

Moreover, the idiom of a language cannot be trans- 
ferred to another language, without doing more or less 
violence to its idiom. Accordingly, the Seventy learned 
Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek, 
hence called the Septuagint—a part of it, the Penta- 
teuch, between two and three centuries before the 
Christian era—have observed this principle. They 


have translated Elohim in the singular, (6 Oc0s) as it 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 181 


_is in our translation of the Bible. They, surely, un- 
derstood the meaning of the word; but they have given 
no intimation that it denotes plurality in God. The 
writers of the New Testament, in their quotations from 
the ancient Scriptures, have uniformly done the same 
thing. But none of them, if Elohim (designating the 
true God) teaches plurality in his nature, have given us 
the sense of that word in their translation or quota- 
tions. Would they not have done so had such been 
the fact? and would not fidelity, in so important a 
matter as this is represented to be, have required it of 
them ? 

So, in Ex. 21:4, 6; the Seventy have rendered the 
Hebrew plural of masters, into the singular, (6 xdgvos— 
master,) as in our Bible. In like manner, our trans- 
lators have observed the English idiom, in rendering 
other plural words. In Ps. 45:17; 47:1, 3, 9, 
and other places, they have rendered plural words— 
plural also in the Septuagint—(Acol, #47, daois,) in the 
singular— people.’? Bishop Horsley has designedly 
violated the idiom of our language, by rendering it in 
the. plural form, ‘‘ peoples,’? not only to give the 
sense but the form of the original, It is true that 
people is a noun of multitude ; but not more so than 
nation, and that in the singular. The word (27) 
people, here means, as it often does, nations, as dastin- 
guished from the Jews ; i. e. the heathen,—a word 
derived from %6»y, —gentiles, pagans ; a sense which 
the mere English reader hardly gets. Such is the 
rendering in Ps, 44; 2; “ How thou didst drive out 


132 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


the heathen with thy hand.” It is idiomatic in our 
language, to address an individual in the use of the 
plural pronoun you, with a plural verb; as— you are 
the author ;” for “thow art the author.2’? But this 
cannot be transferred to another language without vio- 
lence to its idiom. [Try it, in Latin or Greek, to 
name no other language: Vos quoque, Brute /] 

But the plural form designating an individual, is 
used in Hebrew to denote rank, authority, respect, rev- 
erence, sovereignty ; but not, so far as appears, to 
express plurality in the individual to whom it is ap- 
plied. Such is the fact in Exodus 21 : 4, 6; already 
quoted. Soin Ex. 7:1: ‘ Jehovah said unto’ Moses, 
See, I have made thee a god (elohim—gods) to Pha- 
raoh?’—in accordance with Hebraistic idiom. In’? 
Chron. 10:9, and 1 Kings 12:9, the plural form 
denotes sovereignty ; as in other passages referred to. 
King Rehoboam, who had rejected the counsel of the 
old men, said to the young men, “ What advice give ye; 
that we [the king] may return answer to this people 
which have spoken to me ???—singular and plural both, 
as in the question, ‘Whom shall J send, and who will 
go for us ?”? In the latter passage, as Prof. Knapp 
remarks (p. 132), “the plural form may be explained 
either as pluralis majestaticus [the plural of majesty 
or supremacy], or as denoting an assembly for consul- 
tation. The chiefs of heaven are described. as there 
collected ; and God puts to them the question, whom 
shall we make our messenger ?” This latter repre- 
sentation is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22: ‘I saw Je- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 133 


hovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven 
standing by him, on his right ‘hand and on his left. 
[Literally so?] And Jehovah said, Who shall. per- 
suade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth- 
gilead 2 And one said on this manner, and another said 
on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and 
stood before Jehovah, and said, I will persuade him. 
And Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he 
said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the 
mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt 
persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do 
so.”’ | 

Should there be a doubt as to the meaning of this 
plural form, in any of the passages just quoted— 
whether it truly and properly denotes sovereignty or 
supremacy—that doubt may be removed, by consider- 
ing another example, which appears to be decisive. 
(Ezra 4: 11,18.) In the reign of Artaxerxes, king of 
Persia, certain disaffected persons—enemies to the re- 
building of the house of God at Jerusalem—prepared 
a letter which they “sent unto him, even unto Artax- 
erxes the king ;”? to whom he made reply, ** Peace, and 
at such a time. The letter which ye sent unto us 
[Artaxerxes the king] hath been plainly read before 
_ me.”? He then, in the exercise of his individual sove- 
reignty, ordered the work to cease; and it ceased ac- 
_cordingly. Here is no allusion whatever to any “ as- 
sembly for consultation.”? Nothing appears but the 
determination of a despotic monarch, asserting his own 
supremacy in the use of the plural form, common in 


& 


é§ 0: Beth A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


such cases. ‘There seems to be no way of evading this 
conclusion. | . 

Besides, it is evident that the plural form, Elohim, 
- when applied to Jehovah, is not used to denote plurality 
in the nature of the Godhead, from the manner in 
which it is applied to false gods. In 1 Kings 11 : 33, 
we find the plural form applied to each of three false 
gods: ‘* Because that they have forsaken me, and have 
worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess [feminine plural] of 
the Zidonians, Chemosh the god [plural] of the Mo- 
abites, and Milcom the god [plural] of the children of 
Ammon.’’ Was there a plurality in this goddess, and 
in each of these gods? Clearly, the word is employed, 
in each case, to denote a single individual, according 
to Hebraistic usage. It is used twice, in the same way, 
in Judges 16: 23. “‘ Then the lords of the Philis- 
tines gathered them together for to offer a great sacri- 
fice unto Dagon their god, [elohim,] and to rejoice: 
for they said, Our god [plural] hath delivered Samson 
our enemy into our hand.’’? This word is used in the 
same manner in the next verse; and applied to Jeho- 
vah in v. 28. 

In Judges 18 : 22, it is applied to an angel, who was 
sent as a messenger from heaven to Manoah and his 
wife. They spoke of him as “the man of God,?? and 
‘the man”? simply, and proposed to provide for him 
an entertainment ; not knowing that he was an angel of 
Jehovah. He declined the proposal, and told them, if 
they would offer a burnt-offering, to offer it to Jehovah. 
That is just as the angel did that appeared to John in 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 135 


the Apocalypse, Rev. 19 : 10, when the latter fell at 
his feet to worship him: ‘ See thou do it not: Iam 
thy fellow-servant: worship God.”? The same thing 
is repeated inch. 22:9. After the angel had ascended 
in the flame that went up from the altar, and thus left 
them, and they “knew that he was an angel of Jeho- 
vah,’?? Manoah said, ‘‘ We shall surely die, because 
we have seen God”—Elohim. They simply used it as 
a term of respect and reverence, which they applied to 
one whom they understood to be an angel. 

In the thirty-second chapter of Exodus, the same 
plural word is used several times, to designate the 
golden calf which Aaron made for the people to wor- 
ship. The people said to Aaron, ‘‘ Up, make us gods, 
[elohim, a god,| which shall go before us; for, as for 
this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land 
of Egypt, we know not what has become of him.’ 
And he made ‘‘ a molten calf ;’? and they said, ‘‘ These: 
[plural pronoun too] be thy gods, O Israel, which have 
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’’? And 
Aaron “built an altar before 17.”—v. 5. “ Then I 
cast it (the gold) into the fire, and there came out this 
calf.””—y. 24. In the whole narrative, there is no 
allusion whatever to more than one image, and the 
whole account shows that there was but one. And yet 
elohim.is applied to it, just as it is to Jehovah, and to 
the false gods before mentioned. The Seventy, con- 
trary to their usual custom, render this word here, in 
the plural—gods. To be consistent with their general 
practice, both they and our English translators should 


136 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


have rendered the word in the singular—a god: 
“* Make us a god, &c., as for this Moses,’’—our leader, 
ruler, elohim,— we know not what has become of 
him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered 
sacrifice unto the idol.”,—Acts 7: 40, 41. The pas- 
sage here quoted, gives us the plural, ‘ gods ;’? doubt- 
less taken from the Septuagint, the version of the 
Scriptures in most common use among the Jews at that 
time. 

But this is not all. This plural form is used in a 
similar manner in the New Testament. The apostle 
Paul uses it in the same way, and for the same general 


purpose for which it is used in the passages which have 


been quoted from the Old Testament. Into the Co- 
yinthian church which he had gathered, false teachers 
had intruded themselves, who endeavored to injure 
him in the estimation of that church, and to set at 
naught his claims and his authority as an apostle of 
Jesus Christ. They took advantage of his absence 
and long delay to visit that interesting field of his la- 
bors, to make good their false accusations. In his 


defense of himself from the charges brought against him, | 


(2 Cor. c. 10-18,) he goes into a particular account of 
the matter, boldly maintains his rightful claims to the 
apostleship, and asserts his authority, in a style of 
address suited to the occasion. “If any man trust to 
himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think 
this again, that, as he is Christ’s, even so are we 
Christ’s.—(10 : 7.) Let such an one think this, that 
such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, 


cig see 
— 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 1387 


such will we be also in deed, when we are present.— 
(v. 11.) But we will not boast of things without our 
measure, but according to the measure of the rule 
which God hath distributed to ws, a measure to veach 
even unto you.”—(v. 13.) This style runs through the 
remainder of the epistle; in which this apostle shows, 
(11 : 28,) that he has “daily, the care of all the 
churches.’’ Here is the firm language of his asserted 
claim to be an authorized apostle; expressed in the ap- 
propriate style of authority—the plural forms of the 
Old. Testament, and the common form of claiming and 
publicly asserting authority or supremacy, (so in Gal. 
1: 8, 9,) in all ages. ; 

There is no good reason to believe that this plural 
form of expression, of which we have been speaking, 
was adopted by ancient kings—Jewish or pagan—from 
the language employed by God respecting himself, in 
the Bible ; but very good reasons to the contrary. The 
derivation of the word in question from the Arabic, as 
mentioned by Prof. Knapp, and the fact that God 
speaks to us in the language and after the manner of 
men, in order that he may be clearly understood by 
men, prove this conclusively. He speaks of himself as 
“a Great Kine,’ and as having a kingdom, a throne, 
a scepter—all taken from the usages and the language 
of men; not adopted by men from God’s representa- 
tion of his doings, or of the mode of his existence. 

This whole argument in favor of a plurality of per- 
sons in the nature of God, from the plural forms of 
expression in the Old Testament, is too regardless of 


138 A BIBLICAL TRINITY: 


the Hebrew idiom, too fanciful, and too arbitrary, to 
have any weight with critics who are not incorrigibly 
devoted to a troublesome theory. 

As to the evidence in favor of the Tritheistic theory, 
from Matt. 28 : 19, we have but a word to say. The 
writer of the article in question remarks respecting 
it: ‘* No view is at all consistent or even tolerable 
but this, that this passage was designed to present 
to the mind the three Divine persons or agents by 
whom salvation is secured, and the work of each in 
all its parts.’—p. 719. The preceding statement 
seems ‘‘ consistent’? with nothing but this Tritheistic 
theory, or absolute tritheism; nor is it ‘‘ even tole- 
rable,” as a representation of what the Scriptures 
teach on the subject. This passage, in connection 
with the rest of the New Testament, reveals to us 
Gop—“ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,”’ 
with special reference to the commencement, progress, 
and completion of the work of man’s salvation. This 
is not theory—but REVEALED TRUTH. But, ‘ three 
distinct and competent moral agents in the nature of 
God,” is theory, and not REVEALED truth. Under 
one or another of the above or similar terms, and in 
various connections, God has revealed his purposes of 


merey to man, and all the momentous truths of. 


redemption by Jesus Christ. If we go beyond the 
record, we pass the boundaries of human knowledge 
on this subject, and enter the illimitable field of human 
speculation, contradiction, and absurdity. 

Other passages adduced by this writer as evidence of 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 139 


the truth of this theory, are examined elsewhere, on 
these pages. ; 

2. The second topic to be considered under this Tri- 
theistic theory, is, that these three infinite, self-existent 
minds, or distinct and competent moral agents, are so 
united in one ‘ essence, substance, or substratum, as 
to constitute one Divine Spirit, or Being. ‘* It unites 
the three Persons in one God.”’ 

The reason, then, that they are not, in every intelli- 
gible sense, ‘‘ three distinct and wholly independent 
Gods,’’ is, confessedly, their union in the manner de- 
fined. 

What, then, is this supposed entity, called by any 
one of three names, which—out of three infinite, self- 
existent minds, three distinct and competent moral 
agents, three Persons as really distinct, in every other 
sense, as Peter, James and John—so unites them as to 
constitute one God? “It is something [as before 
quoted], the nature of which is not revealed.” But 
how do we know that this hidden substratum is a real- 
ity, and not a scholastic fiction? Is it revealed as a 
reality? This does not appear on the pages of inspira- 
tion. It is revealed that there is one, only one, living 
and true God—-“ the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost.” These three, in the language of a certain ~ 
‘¢ Minority Report”’ on the subject of the Trinity, are 
“three subsistences in the Divine nature ;” that is, 
each of the three-has a “real being” there.—(Web- 
ster.) Each must have a “real being’’—a real ex- 
istence—or be a non-entity. Where is it revealed that 


140 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


“‘three subsistences,’? or three Persons, in the Divine 
nature, are united, by means of a common substratum, 
in one God? Christ, ‘the Son of man’? and “the 
Son of God,” says: ‘‘I am in the Father and the Fa- 
ther in me. I and my Father are one.” But this 
language does not teach, or imply, that he refers to a 
union of his Divine nature with the “ distinct person” 
of the Father. Plainly, it is a union of “the Son of 
man’? with “the Father that dwelt in him.?? But no 
such language is ever used in reference to the Holy 
Spirit and the Father; and no such union as is claimed 
between the Holy Spirit and the Father is ever af- 
firmed in the Scriptures. 

What do any of us know about this substratum ? 
We are told there ‘‘ must be’? something to unite the 
“* three subsistences,”’ ‘the three distinct Persons, in 
one God ;”? and we may as well call it by this name— 
substratum—as anything else; seeing it is that re- 
specting the nature of which we know nothing. But 
what valid evidence is there, that there is a “ some- 
thing’? which unites three sets of Divine attributes in 
one God; when it is not revealed that three sets of 
Divine attributes exist at all? We know nothing of 
any substratum which unites one set of Divine attri- 
butes in God. All we know is, that God possesses 
certain qualities, and that he performs certain acts of 
different kinds or classes which we properly refer to 
him as their author ; and we say, in reference to these 
qualities and to each class of acts—as a matter of con- 
venience in thinking, writing, and speaking on the sub- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. : 141 


ject—that he has such and such attributes—e. g. om- 
nipotence, omniscience, wisdom, benevolence, etc. But 
none of us know anything of their being united in a 
substratum. We only know that they belong to God ; 
and hence we say—referring them to him—that he has 
these several attributes. Should it be said, that we 
cannot conceive of these attributes as belonging to the 
Divine mind, or as existing, unless they are united in a 
substance or substratum ; the proper reply would be, 
that we can conceive of it as well without the supposed 
substratum as with it. That does not aid its concep- 
tion at all. It is sufficient to know and to say, that God 
possesses the attributes and performs the acts in ques- 
tion. This appears to be the limit of human knowl- 
edge on the subject; and the supposed yet unknown 
substratum, does not help us beyond that limit one 
hair’s breadth—unless it.be into mist and absurdity. 
If we are otherwise incapable of conceiving of the 
thing, that is proof positive of no such entity as is 
claimed, but only of our incapacity. The truth is not 
dependent for its existence or its nature on our capa- 
city to conceive of it. Water has been converted into 
ice, whether we have seen it or can so conceive of it or 
not. 

Again ; do we know anything definitely, respecting 
this substratum ? Are we sure it has a “‘ real being ?” 
Where is the evidence? Take away from anything its 
attributes, and what remains? Take away from mat- 
ter one of its attributes—extension—and what is left? 
Merely a mathematical point, without any uniting sub- 


142 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


stance or any attributes at all. Take away from the 
true God his attributes, or suppose them taken away, 
-and what is left? Where is the uniting substratum ? 
It is gone; and we know not that it was ever there. 
The only thing, after all, which prevents the Trithe- 
istic theory of the Trinity from being pure tritheism, 
in every possible sense of the word, is, so far as human 
knowledge is concerned, a mere non-entity. God has 
indeed a nature, including the whole of what he is; 
but the evidence that there is a God, to whom certain 
properties or attributes belong, does not prove a sub- 
stratum. No evidence of its existence has been pro- 
duced, but simple asswmption ; and this, “like the 
baseless fabric of a vision, leaves not a wreck behind.”’ 

But still, they tell us we cannot prove that this dis- 
tinction of three Persons in the Divine nature, united 
in one substratum, is absurd or inconsistent with the 
Divine unity, because we do not know anything about 
it—it is “‘ an awful mystery.”? That is, they hide the 
subject in the thickest Egyptian darkness, where none 
of us can see or feel anything but darkness itseif, and 
then tell us we cannot prove, amid total darkness, what 
it requires light either to prove or disprove! It is in- 
deed “a mystery,” or rather a thick mist cast before 
our eyes, to shun the labor of explanation and proof, 
and to conceal the absurdity which would otherwise be 
a little too glaring. We might say in return, that 
they cannot prove there is any such distinction in the 
nature of God, or any such union of three Persons in a 
common substratum, as they affirm. We may fairly 


y A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 143 


put this theory with those of “ eternal generation” and 
“¢ eternal procession,” and say of them all, as Dr. Em- 
mons says of the latter two, that they are “ such 
mysteries as cannot be distinguished from real ab- 
surdities.”’* 

But we have not yet done with the Tritheistic form 
of the common theory of the Trinity. A few things 
more must be said of the word person, as used in this 
theory, in a peculiar sense. “It (the word) is applied 
only to beings possessing intelligence, will and atffec- 
tions.”’ 'To such beings it is applicable. It is applied 
to men and to God. And it is as appropriate and 
as scriptural, when applied to angelic existence, as 
when it is applied to Divine existence. 

Suppose, then, that God sends to this world an em- 
bassy of three angelic persons, equal in intellect, know- 
ledge, holiness, and all personal attributes, and united 
together in one’ Divine commission—this embassy fur- 
nishes as good an example of one angelic being, as 
three Divine persons, each with his own distinct intel- 
lect, susceptibility, will, and other Divine attributes, 
all united in one scholastic substratum, does of one 
Divine being. This Divine commission forms as com- 
plete a union of three such angelic persons in one com- 
plex being, constituting a trinity in unity, as a con- 
ceivable or even possible scholastic entity does of three 
Divine persons in one complex being, constituting a 
Trinity in unity. The persons in each case are repre- 


* Sermons, v. 1, p. 81, ed. 1815. 


144 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


sented as equally distinct, equally competent moral 
agents, equally well united in one, having the same na- 
ture, and perfectly harmonious. 

Indeed, we might go farther ; for the materials have 
been furnished ready to our hands, in a defense of the 
common theory of the Trinity. A Reverend Doctor in 
one of the high places of the church, appearing in 
marked opposition to the “‘ heretical’? views of a neigh- 
bor, said in his own pulpit, that “the several Persons 
of the Trinity are as distinct from each other as Peter, 
James and Paul.’? We have, then, only to consider 
these three good men ‘‘ full of the Holy Ghost,’’ united 
in one Divine commission to evangelize the nations, 
and going forth together with one heart in their work ; 
and we have three persons in one complex being, con- 
stituting a human trinity in unity. In each case— 
angelic, scholastic, and human trinity—the three per- 
sons have.alike the attributes of three fully competent 
moral agents, are equally distinct, and are as really 
united in one complex being, constituting a trinity in 
unity, in one case as much as in either of the others. 
The union is none the less complete when formed by a 
Divine commission, than by a scholastic substratum. 
The persons in each of the three trinities, are alike 
“¢ three in one respect, and one in another respect.”’ 

It has been further said, in illustration of this sub- 
ject, that “‘when an army is said to be ‘ one body,’ 
it means that though composed of thousands of bodies, 
there is one respect in which they cannot be considered 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 145 


as two.”’* But there is this wide difference between the 
army and the Trinity. In the latter, one Person, 
one agent, comprehends, virtually, the physical and 
moral force (so to speak) of the whole Trinity. Itis — 
so; or, according to the theory we are considering, 
there are—contrary to the Bible—three Gods. But 
in an army of ten thousand men, one person, one agent, 
includes only one ten-thousandth part of the physical 
and moral force of the whole army. They are no less 
ten thousand distinct agents—ten thousand men, be- 
cause they are united in one army—“ one body ;’’ the 
soul of which is the will of their commander. But they 
have ten thousand distinct and independent wills—just 
like any other ten thousand men—and if they choose 
they can rebel, and scatter to the four winds. How 


does such a union in $ 


‘one body” help our conceptions 
of a scholastic Trinity, or make it any the less absurd ? 
We might say, in like manner, that the whole human 
race are one, in some important respects—one in their 
common father—one still, as a race, properly designa- 
ted by the word man; as the three Persons in the 
common theory of the Trinity are designated by the 
word God. ‘Those of the latter have one and the same 
nature ; and so have those of the former. 

In the scholastic theory of the Trinity, as it is com- 
monly represented, when we view the Father sending 
the Son, considered in respect to his Divine nature, 
and both uniting to send the Holy Spirit, considered as 


* Difficulties of Religion, p. 232. 
nha 


146 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


a competent moral agent distinct from two other com- 
petent moral agents, it seems impossible for the mind 
to be satisfied that the three are truly equal. Make 
what effort we please—try as hard as we can—it 1s 
extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to rid our- 
selves of the impression—the real, practical convic- 
tion—that the Father only is supreme ; and that the 
Son and Spirit are subordinate, not only in office, but 
in nature. | 

This tritheistic theory, after all the statements and 
explanations which have accompanied it, does really 
comprise and set forth “ three Gods.”? Common 
minds—for whom the gospel was especially intended— 
whatever efforts they or their teachers may make to the 
contrary—can hardly fail so to understand and receive 
it. Indeed, there is only a metaphysical, hair-splitting 
distinction between this theory and bald tritheism—a 
‘distinction without a difference. | 


° 8. The third topic to be considered in this theory 


is, that these three infinite, self-existent minds, or 
“ Peers of God,’? furnish the great Jehovah with 
“infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind”— 
“society of his own grade ;” these separate and 
mutual Divine conditions being essential to “ any clear 
view of the plan of redemption,”’ to “ fully meet the 
social wants of his infinite nature,’ to “the mutual 
love”? of the Persons of the Godhead, and to their 
individual and joint felicity. 

Society in a mind, the society of three minds ‘‘ in the 
Divine mind.”? What an idea! Every mind has the 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 147 


“ society” (if we may call it so) of its own thoughts, 
feelings, conceptions, plans, purposes, etc. Newton had 
not a little pleasant “‘ society’? in his own mind, while 
engaged in his investigations and discoveries in science. — 
The man who has committed some great crime, and is 
in consequence confined in a solitary cell, has not the 
most agreeable “ society”? which can be imagined. But, 
as to the idea of “‘ three infinite, self-existent mands,”’ 
three Persons furnishing “‘ infinitely blessed society in 
the Divine minp’?—“ society of his own grade””— 
three ‘‘ Peers of God” in one Divine Being, associating 
together, deliberating, counseling, planning, covenant- 
ing with one another; one of them “ eternally gene- 
rated’ by another, and by him sent to execute his pur- 
poses; one “‘ eternally proceeding’’ from two, and sent 
by them both to complete the work before commenced 3; 
“these are notions which may well puzzle our reason in 
conceiving how they agree.’? Some of them seem hardly 
‘6 orthodox.”? When were these “ notions’’ revealed— 
to whom—where found in the Book of revelation ? Or, 
are they the creatures of the imagination, the pro- 
ductions of metaphysical philosophy ? 

There seems to be no good reason for the effort made 
by one of these writers, to keep up a distinction be- 
tween mind and spirit ; using mind to designate each 
Person of the Trinity taken separately; and spirit, 
the Being in whom they are all united in one. John 
Howe—a name greatly and justly revered—speaks, in 
the passage already quoted, of “‘ three distinct, eternal 
spirits, each having his own distinct, singular, intelli- 


148 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


gent nature, united .... . in the one God.” In 
the report of the sermon preached in Boston, the reader 
may have already noticed that the preacher spoke of 
*‘ infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind,’’ not 
spirit. But whether this is the language of the preacher 
or of the reporter, does not appear. ‘The Divine mind, 
is God; as really as the Divine spirit. ‘Three Divine 
minds, or three Divine spirits, are ‘‘ three distinct and 
wholly independent Gods.”? This distinction is ob- 
served, apparently, to shun the obvious appearance of 
absurdity or tritheism. But it is an arbitrary dis- 
tinction, without a difference. He might as well have 
used these two words in the reverse order. . 

Nor does it appear, from the Scriptures, that three 
Persons in the nature of God, exercise “* ardent mutual 
love”? toward each other. He who was “‘ the Son of 
man” and ‘the Son of God,’ said, when on earth, 
‘The Father loveth the Son;”? and this Son loved the 
Father with ardent affection. But it is not said, 
‘‘ the Father loveth”’ the Logos, or the Holy Spirit; or 
they him. This representation is a part of that scho- 
lastic philosophy which is everywhere apparent. “‘ So- 
ciety in the Divine mind,’’ is likewise a part of the 
same philosophy. God has not told us anything of his 
“ social state??—or whether any such state appertains 
to ‘an infinite mind’’—any more than he has of the 
mode of his existence. All his teachings relative to 
the subject in any way have the contrary aspect. It 
is bald assumption. 

As was said above, every mind may enjoy the “so- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 149 


ciety”? of his own thoughts, feelings, purposes, ko. 5 
and if it can plan great and noble deeds for noble ends, 
with the infallible certainty that its purposes will be 
accomplished, here is enjoyment of the highest order— 
“ society”? even for “an infinite, self-existent mind.’’ 
What human mind is not, in a similar way, furnished 
with rich and abundant sources of enjoyment? But 
when we consider an infinite mind, possessing inex- 
haustible resources of every kind, of which we can 
form no adequate conception whatsoever—such a mind, 
forming its plans and purposes in eternity, and all along 
carrying them into effect far back m ages past; yea, 
millions of centuries, it may be, beyond our utmost con- 
ceptions of past eternity; and then as much farther 
back, and farther still, to a period ald but infinitely re- 
mote—whither our imaginations cannot’ fly, though 
moving for ages with lightning-speed—this infinite Be- 
ing all the while extending his dominions, by the multi- 
plication of worlds and systems diffused through the 1m- 
mensity of space, and peopling the universe with innu- 
merable intelligences of his own beneficent creating ;— 
when we consider these things, shall we speak or think 
of him as “a solitary God??? Shall we set our im- 
aginations or our philosophy to furnish sucH A BEING 
with “equals to love’’—‘ society of his own grade,” 
that he may have “delightful intercourse’’ with his 
“ Peers,”? and thus be infinitely happy! If so, what 
will not human philosophy undertake to do for God, in 
order to “fully meet the social wants of his infinite 
nature 2”? 


150 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


It is to be presumed that God has always taken care 
to have objects enough to love, in order to be happy ; 
and that he is able still to take such care successfully, 
without the aid of scholastic philosophy. Were all of 
us at liberty to follow our own views of what is lovely 
and sublime, in the mutual love and perfect social in- 


tercourse of infinite, self-existent minds in God, we 


might carry this “‘ great idea’’ still farther. We 
might then say, that no reason appears, from the na- 
ture of the case, why there may not be a much larger 
number, as well as fhree such minds, united in one 
~substratum. Why, then, may there not be an indefi- 
nite number of such minds thus united, and filling im- 
mensity—a number far beyond our finite conceptions 
to comprehend—thus magnifying our views of infinitely 
blessed society in God? What anidea! How affect- 
ing and sublime! It throws that other “ great idea’’ 
so far into the shade as to render it hardly visible. 

In our honest endeavors to find in the great Je- 
hovah, ‘‘ society of his own grade,”’ we should take 
care that we do not lay ourselves open to the Divine 
rebuke: “* Thou thoughtest that J was altogether such 
an one as thyself.”? What! Shall we deify the crea- 
tures of our own imagination, and then demand that 
others shall render to these images all that reverence 
which is due to the God of the Bible? Shall we “‘sit 
and speak against our brother,’? and refuse him that 
charity and fellowship which are due to him as a Chris- 
tian and a minister of Christ, because we do not relish 
all his philosophy, or all the flights of his fancy ever 


a a 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 151 
{ 


on the wing? But what fancy was ever more erratic, 
more extravagant, more daring, more lawless, more 
reprehensible, than that which presumes to enter the 
third heaven, and there busies itself with forming a 
society of equals for the one only living and true 
Gop! Such fancy may yet receive a rebuke from Him 
who sitteth on the throne, and be told to come down 
from its aspirings, and keep its proper place; and its 
possessor—however able his intellect or fruitful his 
fancy—to be content with “receiving the kingdom of 
God as a little child.” “If I were hungry, I would 
not tell ruEE!’’ God does not need our aid im pyro- 
viding for him social intercourse and happiness. And 
it becomes us all to keep our imaginations and our phi- 
losophizing within due bounds, in matters appertaining 
to God; to be humble, docile, obedient, charitable, 
long-suffering, forbearing, forgiving, lovers of “ the 
brotherhood,”’ and faithful followers of him who “ went 
about doing good,” and “ died for our sins, according 
to the Scriptures.”? Let us act as though we had not 
forgotten that the right of private judgment, the rights 
of conscience, and the right of forming and expressing 
our own views of Divine truth, belong alike to all; but 
recompense, to the Lorn. 

It has been further argued in favor of the common 
theory of the Trinity, in each of its forms, that the 
Bible uses the three personal pronouns, I, Thou, He, 
in application to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; 
implying mutual address, and communication with each 
other as distinct Persons, in eternity. But it is evi- 


1 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


dent that there is much more plausibility in this argu- 


ment before examination than real weight to it after- - 


ward. Indeed, after considerable search, we have not 
been able to find anything which deserves to be called 
argument on the subject; though a traditionary state- 
ment of this kind is very common. 

We commenced the examination of this particular 
topic with the following inquiries distinctly before the 
mind: How are these pronouns applied to the Persons 
of the Trinity ? And how do the Father and the Holy 
Spirit speak of and fo each other? After searching 
the Scriptures for hours without finding any satisfactory 
answer to the latter question, and then for other hours 
with as little success, we at length came to the conclu- 
sion—which subsequent.examination has confirmed— 
that the Father, the Logos (the Word), and the Holy 
Spirit, never address each other. It is believed, after 
a careful examination, that there is no such representa- 
tion of this subject, as some have claimed, to be found 
in the Scriptures. If it were so represented, before the 
- commencement of this world’s probation, the argument 
would be much more plausible than it is. 

When the Scriptures represent the Father as ad- 
dressing the Son, or the Son the Father—before the 
incarnation—we believe it will be found, on careful ex- 
amination, that there is always ; prophetic reference to 
the Messiah, the Father addressing, or speaking of, the 
Son by anticipation, and the Son the Father. A few 
examples will serve for illustration. One is found in 
Ps. 2: 7-12: “I will declare the decree: the Lord 


s ee 
2. 


eee | idly 


ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ; 153 


hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have 
I begotten thee.”? This is evidently an address, not to 
the Divine nature of Christ, but to the future Messiah. 
Prof. Knapp remarks respecting it: ‘ This Psalm was 
always understood by the Jews, and by the writers of 
the New Testament, to relate to the Messiah. But 
he is here represented under the image of a king, to 
whose government, according to the will of God, all 
must submit. And it is the dignity of this king, or 
Messiah, of which the Psalmist appears here to speak. 
ee Paes The passage would then mean, Thou art 
the king (Messiah) of my appointment : this day have 
I solemnly declared thee such. ‘That the phrase to-day 
alludes to the resurrection of Christ, is proved by a 
reference to Acts 18: 30-34. The writers of the 
New Testament everywhere teach that Christ was 
proved to be the Messiah by his resurrection from the 
dead. Rom. 1:3,4. In this Psalm, therefore, the 
Messiah is rather exhibited as king, divinely-appointed 
ruler, and head of the church, than as belonging to the 
Divine nature.”* Of course, then, it is not the 
Divine nature which is here addressed, but the future 
Messiah. ; 

The same is true of Psalm 110:1: ‘* Jehovah said 
unto my Lord (Messiah), Sit thou on my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”’? Here, Je- 
hovah is plainly distinguished from the Messiah. “‘ Sit 
on my right hand, until I (Jehovah) completely subdue 


* Theology, p. 132, 3. 
7% 


154 ' A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


thine enemies.” It is, therefore, prophetically ad- 
dressed to the Messiah, not to his Divine nature. It 
is clearly so ; otherwise, the representation would be, 
that the first Person of the Trinity, possessing all the 
Divine attributes, engages to subdue the enemies of 
the second Person of the Trinity, possessing likewise 
all the Divine attributes—either ‘‘ numerically the 
same,”’ or those which are ‘similar or equal?’—but 
yet not sufficient for the subjugation of his enemies ! 
From such an interpretation of the passage, if duly 
considered, the common sense of men will surely turn 
away. 

The passage in Ps. 40: 7, 8, is also to be under- 
stood as prophetic anticipation. But this will be par- 
ticularly considered in another place. é 

Psalm 45:6, 7. ‘ Thy throne, O God, is forever 
and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scep- 
ter. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wicked- 
ness: therefore God, [therefore, O God,] thy God, hath 
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fel- 
lows.”? ‘‘ That this whole Psalm relates to the Mes- 
siah, has been generally believed by Jewish and Chris- 
tian commentators.’’—(Stwart.) 

Respecting this passage, Prof. Knapp remarks, that 
“the name Elohim is sometimes given to earthly kings. 
It does not, therefore, necessarily prove that the person 
to whom it is here given must be of the Divine na- 
ture.”? Prof. Stuart also says of it: “‘ that the whole 
Psalm relates to the Messiah, as mediatorial king, can 
searcely be doubted by any one who compares together 


ee 


—— 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. - 8 


all its different parts. The king is called Elohwm, 
God. Does the word God here denote the Divine, or 
the kingly nature or condition of the Messiah? Most 
interpreters, who admit the doctrine of the Savior’s 
Divine nature, contend for the first of these senses, as I 
have myself once done in a former publication. But 
further examination has led me to believe that there are 
grounds to doubt of such an application of the word 
God, in this passage. The king, here called God, has 
for himself a God: ‘thy God hath anointed thee.’ 
The same king has associates, i. e. others who in some 
respects are in a similar condition or ofice. As Di- 
vine, who are associates with the Savior? Besides, 
his equity, his government, his state, as described in 
Ps. 45th, are all such as belong to the king Mes- 
siah.”* 

That this passage is a prophetic address to the Mes- 
siah, in reference to a period subsequent to his first 
personal appearance on earth, can hardly admit of a 
reasonable doubt. Such is its general bearmg, as 
treated in the first chapter to the Hebrews. 

Zechariah 13 : 7, is often quoted, not as an address 
of the Father to the Son, but as a declaration of the 
Father respecting the Son—the second Person of the 
Trinity: ‘‘ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, 
and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah 
of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be 
scattered.”’ 


* Com. on Heb., y. 2. p. 58. 


156 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Let us first consider to whom this statement had 
original reference. ‘‘ Awake, O sword, against my 
shepherd ;’’ the imperative for the future ; as is com- 
mon in prophetic writings: meaning, “* the sword shall 
awake—be actively employed—against my shepherd.” 
But who is ‘‘ my shepherd ?”’ 

God is called the shepherd of his people. The 
twenty-third Psalm commences with the declaration : 
“6 Jehovah is my shepherd ; I shall not want.’? In 
the eightieth Psalm, the writer thus begins his ad- 
dress: ‘Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel; thou that 
leadest Joseph like a flock.”? In the fourth verse, 
this shepherd is addressed as “* Jehovah, God of hosts.” 
In Ps. 79: 13, it is said: “So we thy people, and 
sheep of thy pasture, will give thee thanks forever.”’ 
Jehovah was the shepherd, or supreme ruler of his 
people Israel: he governed and protected them, and 
supplied their wants. 

Those whom God appointed as: rulers under him, 
were under-shepherds. In Jer. 23: 2, 4, it is said: 
‘‘'Thus saith Jehovah, God of Israel, against the pas- 
tors [shepherds] that feed my people; Ye have scat- 


tered the flock, and driven them away. And I will. 
set up shepherds over them, which shall feed thenm.”. 


In Ezek. 24:8, God says: “neither did my shepherds 
search for the flock; but the shepherds feed them- 
selves, and feed not the flock. In Isa. 44: 28, he 
says of Cyrus: ‘‘he is my shepherd, and shall perform 


all my pleasure.”’ | 
In Zech. 11 : 16, 17, Jehovah says-of the ‘‘ foolish 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 157 


shepherd :’’ ‘‘ For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd [a 
ruler| in the land, which shall not visit those that be 
cut off. Woe to the idol shepherd [the unfaithful 
ruler—scribes, priests, and doctors of the law—] that 
leaveth the flock.”? In the next chapter (12 : 5, 6), 
these shepherds are called “‘ the governors of Judah’? 
—the plural being sometimes used, and sometimes the 
singular—one for a class : ‘In that day I will make 
the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the 
wood, and like a torch of fire in a shéaf; and they 
shall devour all the people round about.’ God is 
threatening evil against “‘ the foolish shepherds,” ‘‘ the 
idol shepherds,” or false shepherds, as well as 
against his people through them. Of these shepherds 
he continues to speak in the thirteenth chapter, and 
breaks out (v. 7,) in the language of the passage we 
are considering : *‘ Awake, O sword, against my shep- 
herd?’—a subordinate shepherd; as is said of Cyrus: 
“Che is my shepherd.”’ Just as a principal agent says 
of another, who acts wnder him: “he is my agent.” 
That the Seventy understood by the word rendered in 
our translation shepherd, one of a class, namely, “ the 
foolish shepherds,”’ is evident from the fact, that they 
have rendered it in the plural, tods mopévasg pov ; 
against my shepherds. 'The word rendered fellow, in - 
the latter part of the parallelism, they render tov zoA¢- 
tyy wou, my subject (one of a class), my people. One 
definition which Schleusner gives to this Greek word is, 
subjectus principis, the subject of a prince, or king. 
This latter member of the parallelism has a similar 


158 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


but a wider sense than the former one (in which men- 
tion is made of ‘‘ my shepherd’’), including the people 
of Israel generally, as well as the shepherds. There 
is nothing in the context which leads us to suppose that 
there is a change of the subject here, from the class of 
persons already mentioned, to another person, ‘‘ the 
chief Shepherd’’—the Messiah ; but much to the con- 
trary. Much less, does it designate the Divine na- 
ture of the Messiah,—whatever theory may be formed 
of his Person. | 

Something must be said, of the alleged application of 
this passage by Christ to himself, as though it were 
originally spoken of him. He says (Matt. 26 : 31), 
“ All ye shall be offended because of me this night: 
for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the 
sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”? But 
this is not an accurate quotation, either from the text of 
the Hebrew or of the Septuagint ; as any one may see, 
on a comparison. ‘There is probably an allusion to 
it: but in what way? Quotations are made in the 


New Testament from the Old, with very great latitude. 


In Matt. 2:15, language is used with much more pre- 
cision than in the former case, and applied to the child 
Jesus, in Egypt: he “‘ was thére until the death of 
Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have 
I called my son.”? But by what prophet was it thus 
spoken of him? ‘The only passage to be found, which 
is in any way similar to this, is in Hosea 11:1: 
‘“*’'When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and 


Ae ee eee ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 159 


called my son out of Egypt.’’ But this, evidently, is 
history. How, then, could the sacred writer say, 
“* that it might be fulfilled,’ &c.? There is no good 
reason to believe that the passage quoted, had, in its . 
place, a reference to anything but the calling, or bring- 
ing of the people of Israel out of Egypt. But the lan- 
guage is much modified, and thus applied to the return 
of the child Jesus from Egypt. So the passage in ques- 
tion is modified, and applied to describe the scene which 
was presented, when Christ was seized by the Jews, and 
his disciples fled. Grotius suggests, that this language 
had passed into a proverb; and that the sense of the 
passage is something like this: ‘“‘ As it is wont to be 
said, and as we remember it is somewhere written : 
When the shepherd is smitten, the sheep are scat- 
tered.”—(Kuinoel.) A passage in Josephus is thought 
to confirm this opinion (4ntig. B. 8. 15. 4). When 
Ahab waged war against the Syrians, and Micaiah 
was called to prophesy as to its result, he said: ‘* God 
had showed to him the Israelites running away, and 
pursued by the Syrians, and dispersed upon the moun- 
tains by them, as are flocks of sheep dispersed when 
their shepherd is slain.’? 'To the event above de- 
scribed, Christ evidently refers, in John 16 : 32, with- 
out any allusion to Scripture prophesy: ‘* Behold the 
hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scat- 
tered every one to his own, and shall leave me alone.” 
Christ is often spoken of in the New Testament and 
referred to in the Old, as a shepherd ; and such he 
was, and is; but that the passage in Zech. 18 : 7, had 


160 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


any original reference to the Messiah, there is no good 
reason to believe. . 

The passage in Ps. 102 : 25-27, is commonly sup- 
posed to be addressed to the Divine nature of Christ ; 
particularly, as the language is applied to him by the 
apostle, in the first chapter to the Hebrews. 


It is fair to suppose that this Psalm is what it pur- — 


ports to be; and there is no good reason to doubt that 
the writer of the explanatory title in Hebrew, under- 
stood its real import; especially when it is compared with 
the Psalm itself. This ancient title is, as rendered in 
our translation, “‘ A prayer of the afflicted, when he is 
overwhelmed, and poureth out his complaint before the 
Lorp’’—Jehovah. Such is the import of the Psalm. 
It is a prayer in the form of a Psalm, or sacred song, 
adapted to the condition of a deeply afflicted individual, 
perhaps one of a class—a whole people—composed by 
one of their number; the writer himself feeling the 
full weight of the grievous burden. Such being the 
plain import of the Psalm, there is no internal evidence 
that it originally referred to Christ. 

The writer commences with pouring out his com- 
plaint before Jehovah, and continues through eleven 
verses. Then the contrast is presented, between the 
suppliant and the Bemg addressed; and the writer of 
the Psalm takes comfort in the eternity and mercy of 
God toward his church, to whom his promises, as he 
endures forever the same, will never fail—(vs. 12, 13). 
He then speaks (v. 14,) of the delight which God’s 
people take in everything appertaining to Zion. In 


a, 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 161 


consequence of his interposition in her behalf, even the 
heathen would be led to fear Jehovah; and he would be 
glorified—(vs. 15, 16). The writer then goes on to 
express his confidence that God would regard the 
prayer of the afflicted, and take favorable notice of 
their condition ; whether understood of an afflicted indi- 
vidual, or of his afflicted people in general—(vs. 17-22). 
In v. 23, the writer’s own depressed condition comes up 
again. In the very next verse (24), it continues: “I 
said””—who said? Doubtless the afflicted petitioner. 
“T said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of 
my days: thy years are throughout all generations.” 
Then follows the passage before us: ‘‘ Of old hast 
thou laid the foundation of the earth : and the heavens 
are the work of thy hands. ‘They shall perish, but 
thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a 
garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they 
shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy 
years shall have no end.’’ The writer then concludes 
the Psalm with expressing his confidence, that the 
children of God’s afflicted people would be established 
In prosperity. ; 

This is what the Psalm purports to be—a prayer 
of the afflicted—the poor, the distressed—to JEHOVAH. 
Who is this Jehovah? It is the God of Israel—Jeho- 
vah of hosts. It is He who was the shepherd of 
his people in ancient times ; He who took care of them, 
provided for them, ruled over them; ‘‘ He who was 
with the church’’—the people of Israel—‘‘in the wil- 
derness.”” It is He who, ever since the first intima- 


162 A BIBLICAL TRINITY: 


tions of mercy to man, has been carrying on a gracious 
administration of affairs toward this world—the same 
God who was manifested in the flesh, in the person 
of Jesus of Nazareth; the same who, according to 
Christ’s oft-repeated declaration, ‘‘ dwelt in him,’’ ag 
his Father and his God. He it is, who “laid the 
foundation of the earth,’? whose ‘‘ years are throughout 
all generations,’ and “‘ who is God over all, blessed 
forever.”? On account of His own indwelling in ‘“ the 
Son of man,”—for, “‘in him dwelleth all the fullness 
of the Godhead bodily,’’—the apostle, in the first chap- 
ter to the Hebrews, truly and properly applies this 
language, which was originally addressed to Jehovah, 
to Christ himself; through whom as mediator, as the 
Messiah, the probationary government of this world 
is, and has been from the first, administered. 

This Psalm, then, was composed by an afflicted indi- 
vidual, as the representative of a class, and addressed 
to Jehovah, who dwelt in the Son of God ; so that this 
Son—using the term in the widest sense as a proper 
name-—may be addressed as Jehovah, who ‘ made the 
worlds.”? That the language in question was originally 
addressed by the first Person of the Trinity to the 
second Person, possessing ‘‘ numerically the same’? 
Divine attributes as the first, or those which are “ simi- 
lar or equal’? to his, but “distinct”? from them; the 
Scriptures do not seem to afford a particle of proof. 

It is not wise to set ourselves to make out a whole 
system of divinity from the first verse of Chronicles,— 
‘¢ Adam, Sheth, Enosh,’??—nor to claim that we find 


ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 163 


Christ in every passage of the Old Testament. Such 
a method of interpretation only serves to cast suspicion 
and doubt on those passages which plainly speak of a 
Messiah to come. In regard to this class of passages, 
let the true sense be set forth and maintained; and let 
other passages be understood according to their proper 
import. “ All Scripture is profitable,’? some in one 
way, and some in another. Let each part express that 
meaning which its nature and the circumstances of the 
case require. ‘Then the Holy Scriptures will be rightly 
and most easily understood, and thost honored, as the 
word of God. 

In the Mew Testament, Christ often speaks of the 
Father, and prays to his Father, God : but we are not 
to understand this as spoken of his (Christ’s) Divine 
nature— all the fullness of the Godhead [or, in his 
own language, ‘the Father,’] that dwelleth in him ;” 
but of him as “‘ the Son of man,” or “‘ the Son of God.”’ 
Otherwise, we should represent such passages to mean, 
that the Divine nature of the Son prayed to the Divine 
nature of the Father—one Divine person in the God- 
head praying (through the Messiah) to another Divine 
person in the Godhead. But surely, this is not in ac- 
cordance with the simplicity of the Scriptures, or with 
revealed truth itself. Christ, who commonly speaks of 
himself as “the Son of man,” represents this Son of 
man as praying to the Father. The same Person 
prayed, who died: but the Divine nature of Christ did 
not die. It does not relieve the subject at all, to say 


164 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


that his Divine and human nature both prayed. Not 
so the Scriptures, or common sense. 

Those passages of the Old Testament, then, which 
speak of the Son of God, are prophetic anticipations of 
the Messiah. They refer to what would take place 
during the mediatorial dispensation ; not to what tran- 
spired in reference to the Logos (or Son of God) before 
that dispensation was introduced. And those passages 
of the New Testament, in which the Son speaks of the 


Father, or prays ¢o him, are to be understood in refer- 


ence to his human nature. 

Let us now consider how the three pronouns in ques- 
tion, are used in reference to the Holy Spirit, or Spirit 
of God, in the Scriptures. 

It may be remarked, as the result of a careful ex- 
amination of the subject, that the Holy Spirit is spoken 
of in the third person, in the use of the pronoun he ; 
but is never, either by the Father or the Son, addressed 
in the second person, thou : at least, we have not been 
able to find such an instance. By whom is he thus 
designated, in the third person? Is it by God the 
Father, 1 distinction from the Son and Holy Spirit ? 
It is believed that a clear case of this kind, in which 
the Father speaks fo the Spirit, or of the Spirit, can- 
' not be found in the Scriptures. Commonly—and so 
far as we have been able to find, universally—he is 
spoken of in the third person, by the Holy Spirit him- 
self, under the name of Jehovah, Spirit of Jehovah, and 
the like. It has been said that ‘* Spirit of God,’’ in 
the Old Testament, often means simply God himself. 


. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 165 


But is it God the Father, God in Christ, or God the 
Holy Spirit? Each one of these, according to the 
Scriptures, is God himself. Is it God unrevealed— 
God in the abstract ? Of such a being, we know 
nothing. 

' Who was it that inspired the prophets, and gave 
them their message to the people to whom they were 
sent? We are told, that “holy men of God spake as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”?—(2 Pet. 1: 21.) 
Yet this “ moving’? agent, when he delivers his mes- 
sage to the prophet, calls himself “the Spirit of Jeho- 
hovah,” “ Jehovah of hosts,’? or simply “* Jehovah.” 
Under this latter name, he gave Isaiah his message to 
Jacob: “1 will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my 
blessing upon thine offspring’—(44 : 2, 3). So in 
Zech. 4:6: ‘ This is the word of Jehovah unto Ze- 
rubbabel, saying; Not by might, nor by power, but by 
my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts.”? Yet He who 
‘¢ moved”? the prophet and gave him this message, was 
“ the Holy Ghost.’? The meaning is: “ but I will do 
it myself.”? So in Ezek. 86 : 25, 26, &c.: “ Then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean. A new heart also will I give you, and a new 
spirit will I put within you: and I will take away 
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an 
heart of flesh.”? Who is the Divine agent in the work 
of sanctification here described, if not the Holy Spirit ? 
Throughout the book of Joel, the Holy Spirit, by that 
prophet, speaks to his people, under the name of Jeho- 
vahie * It shall come to pass afterward, that I will 


166 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


pour out my Spirit upon all flesh’’—gentiles as well as 
Jews. In other language: “I will put forth those 
gracious influences, which shall produce the effects in 
question.”’—Joel 2: 28; Acts 2:17. 

It should be observed, that it is not God the Father, 
who inspired the prophet, and who speaks of the out- 
pouring of the Spirit. Nor can the speaker be God 
considered as moral governor simply, i. e. without 
reference to this world’s probation: for that would be 
a palpable contradiction ; inasmuch as he is speaking 
of men in reference to their salvation. But it is the 
Spirit of Jehovah, or the Holy Spirit, who spéaks of 
himself in the third person, by a term designating his 
peculiar office and agency in the work of redemption, 
- for the very purpose of giving his peculiar work promt- 
nence, and making the impression upon men that it is 
done by his special, gracious interposition in their be- 
half: ‘‘ I will pour out my Spirit’’—“ I will put forth 
abundant, gracious, spiritual influences, which shall 
produce great and glorious results in the kingdom of 
the Messiah.”? ‘The figure is taken from the effects of 
abundance of rain, upon the parched ground in very 
warm climates—rapid, great, and happy effects. The 
rain is ** poured out,’’? to produce these effects. So 
the Spirit is “poured out,’’—abundant, gracious Di- 
vine influences shall be granted, producing the happiest 
results. It is believed that when the Holy Spirit is 
mentioned—mentioned as he is, in the third person— 
reference is always had to his peculiar office and 
agency—to those Divine operations which the Scrip- 


o 
ge ie 
Left eler 


A BIBLICAL’ TRINITY. 167 


tures ascribe to God, in his gracious dispensations 
toward men. ‘ 
This practice of speaking of one’s self in the third 
person, for the purpose of giving prominence and effect 
to a particular office or relation, is a very common 
thing; and in ordinary cases, well understood. A 
father, wishing to make a happy and an abiding im- 
pression upon his son, by means of the relation between 
them, says to him: ‘‘ Think of the instructions of your 
anxious father, whenever you are exposed to tempta- 
tion; and be sure that your correct deportment will 
always give him great pleasure.’’? So a dying mother, 
to her wayward son: ‘‘ Remember this last advice of 
your mother, when she is gone.”’ In like manner, the 
presiding officer in a public meeting, speaks of himself 
in the third person: “‘ The Chair,” or ‘ the Modera- 
tor”—thus, in a modest and dignified manner, giving 
prominence and effect to his office and its relation to 
the assembly. The same method is used in the follow- 
ing sentence: ‘*‘ The President of the United States 
will never give his sanction to such a measure ; it would 
be a disgrace to him, and to the nation.” In like 
manner, the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, speaks of 
himself in the third person—after the manner of men 
—with reference to his peculiar office, and to that gra- 
cious agency which he exerts in various ways, favor- 
ing, defending, and extending the Messiah’s kingdom. 
A method of speaking similar to that which has been 
dwelt upon, is common in the Scriptures, on ordinary 
occasions. The Psalmist says: “ they seek my soul, 


? 


168 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


to destroy it ;?? not his soul in distinction from his 
body ; but simply ‘‘ me,’? or my life, ** to destroy it.” 
‘¢ My soul is among lions ;”? “I am among lions”— 
powerful enemies who seek to tear me in pieces. ‘* My 
soul cleaveth unto the dust ;’’ I myself, body as well 
as soul. Similar to these, is Hag. 2: 5: ‘* According 
to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came 
out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you ;”’ so 
I remain among you. Isa. 48:16, is often named 
(e. g. by Watson and others) as containing ‘* the whole 
doctrine of the Trinity :”? ‘‘ And now Jehovah (the 
Father) and his Spirit (the Holy Ghost) hath sent me 
(the Messiah).”? On the word rendered Spirit, Prof. 
Knapp remarks :* that “‘it means here, as it always 
does when used by the prophets in this connection, the 
direct, immediate command of God. To say, then, the 
Lord anv urs Sprait hath sent me, is the same as to 
say, the Lord hath sent me by a direct, immediate com- 
mand.”? Or, Jehovah, even his Spirit, i. e. Jehovah 
himself hath sent me. But the interpretation, on 
which the Professor comments, alters the common the- 
ory materially. In this, the Father and the Son send - 
the Spirit; but in that, the Father and the Spirit 
send the Son. But if ‘ me,’’ in this passage, means 
the Messiah, then it does not mean the Divine nature 
—‘‘ all the fullness of the Godhead,’’ that ‘‘ dwelt” in 
the Messiah. | 

The result of the argument is this: The Son of man, 


* Theology, p. 133. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 169 


or the Son of: God in time—not the Logos in eternity— 
addresses the Father directly, and the Father hin— 
directly or prophetically ; and the Son speaks of the 
Holy Spirit in the third person, Ae ; but never ad- 
dresses the Spirit in the second person, thou. And, 
generally, when God is represented as speaking, he 
speaks in the first or third person, in the singular or 
plural number, after the manner of men; but one Per- 
son in the nature of the Godhead, is not represented as 
addressing another Person in the nature of the God- 
head. 

What, then, is the amount of the traditionary state- 
ment we have been considering, relative to the use of 
the personal pronouns, I, Thou, He ? From a care- 
ful examination it would seem, that it has no force, 
and no application to the case; these pronouns not 
being employed by the different Persons of the Trinity 
among themselves. But the manner in which they are 
used, very naturally and happily accords with the Bibli- 
cal view of the Trinity, as set forth on the preceding 
pages. | 

From what has been advanced on the general subject, 
it is evident that this distinction of three Persons, in 
the nature of the Godhead itself, as presented in the 
common theory of the Trinity, is not actually taught in 
the Scriptures. If so, wHaT 1s GAINED by insisting 
upon it as an article of faith? The supreme Divinity 
of the Son and Spirit—the great thing aimed at in that 
theory—is as fully taught without it as with it. N ay, 


the supreme Divinity of each of these is much more 
8 


170 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


clearly and fully taught in the simple Trinity of the 
Scriptures than in the common theory. This theory, 
as we have seen, virtually teaches the derivation of the 
second and third Persons, and their inferiority to the 
first—the Father ; who is represented as “‘ the fountain 
of the Deity,” who ‘‘begets’’ the second Person, and 
from whom or from both, the third “ proceeds.” This 


“ pro- 


inferiority of nature—a nature “‘ begotten’”’ or 
ceeding”—is virtually contained in that theory; not- 
withstanding the entire equality of the three Persons, 
‘in eggence and attributes,” is affirmed. ‘The asser- 
tion of such equality, though made with the utmost 
sincerity, is an unavailing effort to reconcile what ap- 
pears to be intrinsically absurd, what, indeed, is arre- 
concilable with the plain teachings of the Bible. 

What, then, is gained by this scholastic philosophy ? 
“Tf God, only in his relations to us and the creation 
around us, God as developed by his attributes, and not 
as he is in himself or considered in respect to his wnter- 
nal esserice, be revealed to us in the Bible, why not be 
content with what the Scriptures have taught, without 
forcing sentiments upon the sacred writers which have 
been excogitated only by metaphysicians of later 
days ?’’* 

But some are not content with this. ‘They must 
have something beside to help sustain the Scriptures. 
- They maintain that the common theory is necessary to 
defend the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity ; to drive 


* Stuart on Heb. v. 2, p. 315. 


es a 
Ce 
+) ee Oe a 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 171 


out and keep out heresy. This was the grand reason - 
for adopting it at first, and the one often assigned for 
holding on to it still; and many do hold on to it, as. 
though it were articulus vel stantis vel cadentis eccle- 
si@—the very palladium of the Christian church. 

Bishop Watson says: ‘ In fact, it was by the adop- 

tion of the two great theological terms éuootovws and 
inooracis [homogeneous and person, about the meaning 
_of which there was much contention], that the church 
reared up impregnable barriers against the two leading 
heresies, into which almost every modification of error, 
as to the person of Christ, may be resolved.”?* But 
they did a great deal more, in this way, by excommuni- 
cating and burning heretics. 

- Dr. Woods also says: ‘ Substance i is a metaphysi- 
cal term, [exactly so], originally introduced into the 
Trinitarian creed, and still employed, to confront 

Arianism.” The Doctor is right about it, it is even 
so. But it is far better “‘to confront Arianism,’? So- 
cinianism, and any other theological ism that is wrong, 
with the simple word of God. That word is far more 
intelligible to the common mind—to any human mind— 
more consistent with itself and with common sense, and 
‘possesses infinitely higher authority in matters of faith. 

John Marck, an eminent Protestant divine, who was 
born in Friezland in 1655, and died in 1731, published 
a book entitled the Marrow of Christian Theology. 
It is a condensation of his voluminous theological sys- 


* Theol. Instit. p. 162. 


172 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


tem, (a standard work of great authority in the univer- 


sity at Leyden), and a work of uncommon merit—mul-_ 


tum in parvo. In his Medulla, remarking on the sub- 
ject of the Trinity, the author says, among other things, 
that “the words Person and Trinity are necessary, 
the present state of the church, TO EXCLUDE HERESY ; 
-although the words themselves are not explicitly found 
in Scripture; for heretics use even Scripture terms in 
a perverted sense. And they manage very badly who 
yield so much to them on account of their aversion to 
these distinctions, as not to speak at all concerning the 
mystery of the Father, Son and Spirit.”’* : 

It is confessed then, and insisted, that the terms 
Person and Trinity are necessary—that they cannot 
be dispensed with—that the church of God is unsafe 
and his revelation insufficient, without the help and 
protection of these uninspired auxiliaries. Not only 
are these terms carefully and confidently affirmed to be 
necessary, but the need is explained as well as affirmed. 
And why this pressing need ?—what the Divine exi- 
gency that can and must be relieved by these human 
inventions ? : 

They were not—so it seems—necessary to be. given 
by inspiration of God; for such a necessity would im- 


* “Nomina Persone et Trinitatis, in presenti statu Ecclesie, ad 
arcendam heresin, sunt necessaria, etiamsi explicite in Scriptura non 
legantur: quia sensu detorto nominibus Scripture utuntur etiam here- 
tici. Et male agunt omnino, qui tantum his ex odio terminorum cedunt, 
ut nonnisi de Mysterio Patris, Filii et Spuritus loquantur.” Vide 
“ Johannis Marckii Curtstian& Turotociz Meputua didactico- 
elenctica. Editio tertia AMSTELZDAMI, anno M, DCC,V.” p. 65. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 173 


ply defect and oversight in what is so given. They 
were not necessary for the understanding of revealed 
truth; for such necessity would involve the absurd sup- 
position of a revelation not revealed. ‘They were not 
necessary, for the wise or the unwise, till centuries 
after the efficacious diffusion of Christian light among 
civilized and barbarous nations. For all these objects, 
as is virtually and necessarily admitted, they were un- 
necessary and superfluous; but only and absolutely 
necessary, as it would seem, for a certain brief exi- 
gency, viz., “‘ the present state of the church’??—more 
than a century and a half now gone by; but then, in- 
dispensable -to be incorporated in creeds and covenants 
as tests of faith and terms of fellowship, for the sole 
and blessed purpose of “excluding heresy!?? <A pre- 
cious confession this of the modern ‘‘ John whose sur- 
name was Marck !’ ct 

But it would be wrong to consider him as the exclu- 
sive owner of so precious a reason. It was the property 
not only of this eminent divine, whose authority was so 
great in and long after his own day, but of his prede-. 
cessors, contemporaries, and successors in the chair of 
theology, to be used, jomtly and severally, by all who 
would compel subscription and adhesion to scholastic 
creeds, under penalty of noncommunion and excommu- 
nication; and who then turn round and exclaim, ‘‘ So 
the Church has always understood the subject !” 

The great object of the common theory of the Trinity, 
then, is, and has been from the first, to exclude heresy 
from the Church. But whence came this theory? 


174 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Where did it originate ? For we do not find it in the 
Bible. 

We do not design to speak, here, of the assumption 
that the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed, known, 
and understood from the remotest antiquity, and hence 
received throughout the whole heathen world; for this 
topic may be more appropriately introduced in a sub- 
sequent chapter. But we wish here to present the 
statement of one or two authors, of known reputation 
and ability,—who hold the common theory,—respecting _ 
‘““the Platonic Trinity.”’ Dr. George Hill says of it: 
‘‘T do not mean the Trinity held by Plato himself; 
for, although it has been said that this philosopher an- 
ticipated the revelation of three Persons in the God- 
head, and that his philosophy prepared the world to 
receive this incomprehensible truth ; yet’? (more briefly), 
the passages referred to are too few and obscure to draw 
this conclusion from them. “ It has been said that the 
trinity of persons in the Deity was a secret doctrine 
DEP bOy teiie es seas not published to the world till 
the second or third century of the Christian era, when 
the Platonic school, following out the sublime views of 
the Divine nature given by their master, which in some 
points corresponded to the Christian revelation, and 
themselves enlightened by an acquaintaince with the 
POSPCL ey sha <, brought forward a scheme very-much 
resembling the Trinity ;” i. e. the common theory of 
the Trinity. 

‘The three principles in the Deity are, 10 aya6dr, 
goodness, vous, intelligence, yuh, vitality. These 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 175 


three, strictly speaking, are more one, than anything 
in nature, of which unity may be predicated. No one 
of them can be supposed without the other two. The 
second and third being, the first is necessarily supposed ; 
and the first being, the second and third must come 
forth. All the three were included by the Platonists 
_ in the Divine nature, the % dciov ; a notion implying 
the same equality which the Christian Fathers main- 
tained.”’* | 

Prof. Knapp also, after speaking of the learned Jews 
who lived beyond the bounds of Palestine, as having 
imbibed many of the principles of the philosophy pre- 
vailing where they resided, and incorporated them into 
their religious system, and in a similar manner of 
the Grecian Jews who. had become acquainted with 
the Christian doctrine, thus remarks: “From the 
foregoing statements, we arrive at the following con- 
clusions, viz.: It cannot be denied that many of the 
ancient heathen philosophers (e. g., the Platonists) be- 
lieved in a Trinity in the Divine nature ; and that they 
were -led to entertain that belief by the principles of 
the theory of emanation, which they had first adopted. 
From this source, many learned Jews, who lived beyond 
the bounds of Palestine, drew their opinions—e. g., the 
"Alexandrine Jews, Philo, and the Cabbalists. These 
Grecian Jews did not, however, simply adopt the pure 
ideas of Plato, which were variously represented, even 
by the New Platonists, but they mixed and incorpor- 


* Lects. in Divin. pp. 380-1. Consult Bp. Horsley’s 13th Letter ta 
Dr. Priestly ; and Cudworth’s Intellectual System. 


176 | A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


ated them with their own national opinions and their 
own religious principles, and thus endeavored to re- 
concile Platonism with the language and doctrines of 
the Bible. That a Trinity, in this sense, was known 
and professed by philosophers and Jews who were not 
Christians, is admitted.”? After speaking of the dif- 
ference between the two theories, Prof. Knapp adds : 
‘¢ But although the Platonic trinity differs thus widely 
from the scriptural doctrine, and also from the estab- 
lished theory of the church, it is yet possible that the 
scholastic and technical language in use on this sub- 
ject, was originally borrowed °Y Christians from the 
Platonic theology.’’* 

From a careful examination of the subject, then, it 
is not only “‘possible,’? but very evident, that ‘“‘the | 
scholastic and technical language’’ of the common the- 
ory of the Trinity, ‘‘ was originally borrowed by Chris- 
tians from the Platonic theology ;’? and that the dis- 
tinctions in the nature of the Godhead, with “the same 
equality which the Christian fathers maintamed,”’ were 
derived from the same source, and not originally from 
the Scriptures. This theory was a scion from Platon- 
ism, engrafted upon Christianity. It was incorporated 
with the latter system by the early fathers, as it had 
before been with Judaism by the learned Jews. Havy- 
inz been thus adopted and incorporated into the sys- 
tem, it was, according to the custom then prevalent of 
holding philosophy in the highest estimation, regarded 


* Theology, pp. 146-7. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 177 


as of the very first importance to Christianity itself. 
That theory did, indeed, afford an opportunity of mani- 
festing decided and permanent. opposition to the errors 
of Arius, and others like him; but such opposition 
could have been manifested much better in another 
way—taking for a foundation THE worp oF Gop 1r- 
SELF, and resting the whole argument on that. ‘‘ Here 
is firm footing; here is solid rock.’? Nothing of any 
value has been gained by that philosophical theory. 
After a thorough experiment of fifteen or sixteen hun- 
dred years, it has been found not to answer the pur- 
pose for which it was introduced, and has ever since 
been maintained, viz.: “to confront Arianism,’ and 
“to exclude heresy’? from the Christian church. 
This work, it cannot do. 

But if nothing is gained, something is lost Bg this 
theory. It throws the Scriptures too much into the 
shade. It is a cloud thrust between us and the sun, 
concealing him from our view and shutting out the 
light of heaven. It indicates conscious weakness—a 
want of entire confidence in the word of God—a secret 
fear that this word is not sufficient to sustain its plain 
teachings, without the aid of scholastic philosophy. It 
has made skeptics and infidels without number. Its 
fruits are uncharitableness, self-righteousness, hatred, 
variance, strife and divisions among brethren ; bigotry, 
superstition, arrogance, domineering and persecution in 
the church of God. A portion of its history is written 
in the ashes and with the blood of martyrs. 


The best way to rebut error in human philosophy, 
Bi ks 


178 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


is, to expose its fallacy in the light of true philosophy. . 
The best way to meet error in revealed religion, 18,— 
not, to confront it with that philosophy which knows 
nothing about it; but with the word of God. If we 
wish for evidence in regard to the question, whether 
Christ the Logos is really God, let us not go to sys- 
tems of human philosophy ; but rather to the oracles of 
God, and hear Jehovah, by an inspired apostle, declare 
respecting the Messiah, that ‘in him dwelleth all the 
fallness of the Godhead bodily ;?? that “he is God 
over all;”? that “‘ this is the true God and eternal 
life ;?? and if these and other similar declarations do 
not settle the question, when “ one plain declaration 
of God is as good as a hundred ;” it will be in vain 
for human philosophy to undertake to make up any 
deficiency of evidence in the case, by resorting to dis- 
tinctions or distinct Persons in the nature of God him- 
self. Yet some appear to think, and strongly to feel, 
that if these distinctions are not insisted upon and 
maintained, then the plain Scripture doctrine of the 
supreme Divinity of the Son and Spirit, must fall to 
the ground: there is no hope for it. But how did the 
writers of the New Testament maintain the real God- 
head of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit? Was it 
not by the simple teachings of the Holy Spirit him- 
self? They did not deem it necessary to add to his 
explicit testimony, any philosophizings of their own, as 
additional evidence, NECESSARY to explain, reconcile, 
or defend the truth which God had taught. When the 
apostle Paul wrote to Christians living in a country 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 179 


where philosophy was:idolized, and the gospel generally 
was regarded as foolishness, he did not consider it 
necessary, out of his own philosophizing, to “rear up 
impregnable barriers against heresy.’? He depended 
on ‘‘ the preaching of the cross ;’? which “is to them 
that perish, foolishness ; but unto us who are saved, it 
is the power of God.” He says the same in regard to 
his preaching : “ And I, brethren, when I came to 
you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, 
declaring unto you the testimony of God.” How it 
would sound, to hear a preacher, after taking this pas- 
sage for his text, or those other words of the same 
apostle,—“* which things also we speak, not in the 
words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the 
Holy Ghost teacheth,?’—to hear him proceed to give 
us, as ‘‘the most generic Orthodox statement of the 
Trinity,—three predicates of the one subject, God ;” 
and then, ‘‘ embodying and setting forth the entire 
doctrine,”’ represented as “ three distinct and eternal 
subsistences in the Godhead’”’—“‘ in the Divine nature 
itself ;” “ God, in his own eternal nature, as three in 
one and one in three’’—“ three hypostases united in 
one essence, substance, or substratum 2? When he 
had finished a discourse of this character, how much 
wiser would his plain, common-sense hearers be, for all 
they had heard from him on this subject? Would 
they not be likely to say, that the preacher had re- 
versed the maxim of the apostle, and spoken to them, 
not “in the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, but 
in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth 2? And if 


180 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


we should find this very account of the matter gravely — 
set forth in an instrument, designed to convict a Chris- 
tian brother of “heresy” in regard to the Bible doc- 
trine of the Trinity,—a work elaborately done by its 
authors, but without quoting, in proof of their position, 
a single passage of Holy Writ,—“ the words which 
the Holy Ghost teacheth,”’—but simply ‘‘ the doctrine 
as we are accustomed to confess it”?—in the language 
of the schools—-“‘ the words which man’s wisdom teach- 
eth ;”? and all this declared to be solemnly ‘‘ regarded 
as absolutely essential to any real confession of the 
doctrine in question ;’’—should we, after hearing such 
a statement, be likely to think the spirit of the above 
* maxim of the apostle pervaded the minds of the au- 
thors, suggested their language, and guided the pen 
that filled out that instrument? Surely, the Scrip- 
tures are thrown quite into the shade, while an anti- 
quated SCHOLASTIC THEORY stands out before us, like 
a gigantic statue of some ancient divinity, resting upon 
a tall pedestal. 

However useful true philosophy may be,—and it has 
important uses when properly applied, and when not 
properly applied it is not true philosophizing,—yet the 
testimony of God can stand without our philosophy, or 
it cannot stand at all. Nay; if you get into your phi- 
losophy that which seems plainly contrary to common 
sense; if you maintain as an essential ingredient of 
Divine truth, that from’which the mind of man, apart 
from his depravity, instinctively revolts; many persons 
will reject the intermingled truth itself,—even the 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 181 


whole system,—which that philosophy was intended to 
illustrate and confirm: for they will consider both as 
resting on the same foundation ; and your example will 
stimulate them to confront your philosophy with that 
which seems to them more consistent with the nature 
of the subject and with common sense. Especially, 
if they have a strong aversion to the truth as revealed, 
and are disgusted with the manner in which it is pre- 
sented, will they take occasion to reject it, on the 
ground of that absurd philosophy which was honestly 
intended for its maintenance and defense: whether 
that philosophy be embodied in ‘‘ the emanation diction 
of the Nicene Council and the dialectic subtilty which 
was called into being by the vagaries of Arius,’’* and 
transmitted to us through the dark ages; or whether 
devised at a later period. If all those who have re- 
jected the common theory of the Trinity, had receded 
just far enough from it to have stopped on the line of 
Scripture truth, instead of going as far the other side 
of it, and most of them very much farther still,—so far, 
as to leave much of that truth out of sight,—they might 
have stood firmly ‘‘ upon the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself bemg the chief 
corner-stone.”? But Trinitarians, on the one hand, 
have been afraid of yielding too much, in their philoso- 
phy of certain doctrines, lest they should give their op- 
ponents the advantage; and Anti-trinitarians, on the 

other hand, have been afraid of acknowledging too 


-* Bib. Repos., Ap. 1835, pp. 315. 


182 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


much, lest they should be drawn into admissions which 


would seem to support a theory that they consider ab- 
surd. In this particular, both parties are in the wrong. 
Let both of them come upon simple Biblical ground, 
and they are safe from the assaults of error, under the 
broad shield of Divine truth. That simple truth is the 
all-important thing to be preserved. This can be well 
done, only on the authority of God. His truth can 
stand on the basis of his own testimony. It does not 
need the support of Platonic, New Platonic or Nicene 
philosophy, or dialectic subtilties of any kind; however 
modified by the taste and fashion of the age. False 
- philosophy thrown around the truth of God, serves only 
to conceal and disfigure it and mar its symmetry and 
beauty. As well might we pile up soft clay against a 
large, stately, comely edifice of granite, to support and 
ornament the building, as to conceal and disfigure the 
_ great truths of the gospel with that scholastic philoso- 
phy which has long been an appendage to those truths. 
Its introduction at first, though according to the cus- 
tom of that* age, indicated a want of entire confidence 
in the word of God, as being of itself sufficient evi- 
denee in the case; and it has brought centuries of 
trouble with it—trouble, which yet has not an end. 
And it is to be expected that God will permit this 
trouble to vex his people, till they learn to trust more 
implicitly in his written word, and less in their own 
philosophical theories. 7 

But why cannot a Biblical Trinity as it came down 
from heayen, stand, on the basis of God’s word alone; 


a | gt. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 183 


without always having its beauty marred and its form 
concealed or disfigured, by the well-meant yet mistaken 
inventions of men? And why cannot all the glorious 
truths which develop the great scheme of redemption— 
that magnificent temple planned in heaven, built by 
God himself and founded upon a rock—stand, amid 
the puny attacks of weak and sinful man, without the 
powerless support of “ philosophy falsely so called?” 
When will all the friends of the Bible practically be- 
lieve, that revealed truth can stand on its own proper 
basis, THE VERACITY oF Gop, without the aid of any 
of the conflicting philosophies—ancient or modern— 
which jostle one Bible truth this way and another that, 
to make room for themselves ? 


CHAPTER III. 
ADDITIONAL PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE EXAMINED. 


On some private dwellings, there is an eminence, 
called The Observatory ; the windows of which are set 
with glass of various colors, designed to imitate the 
colors of the rainbow. Any one who takes his position 
in such an Observatory will see external objects through 
the various media around him,—not as they appear 
when viewed through clear glass, or with the naked 
eye, but—of a color corresponding to that of the me- 
dium through which they are seen. If he looks at 
them through the lightly or thinly colored glass,—the 
yellow or the violet,—they will indeed be tinged with 
yellow or with violet; but he can still satisfy himself 
what their real color is. But if he looks at them 
through the darkest media,—the deep red or the in- 
digo,—every object appears to-be of one and the same 
deep color. All the dwellings within the compass of 
his vision,—whether red, yellow, stone, slate, or white, — 
the foliage of the trees, and the rich green carpet which 
the God of nature has spread over the broad meadows 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 185 
and the distant hills, al/ are a deep red, or the darkest 
indigo. 

So itis with objects of thought, when they are viewed 


through a false medium. The truth is discolored and 


perhaps distorted by it, and we do not see it as it is. 
If we look at the Scriptures through the medium of 
prejudice or of a false philosophy, instead of doing so 
with the naked eye of common sense and in the clear 
light which revelation generally sheds upon any sub- 
ject which is under examination, we shall not discern 
their true meaning; but they will be tinged or deeply 
colored by the mediwm through which they are seen. 

The preceding illustration has an important bearing 
upon the object of this chapter ; which is, an examina- 
tion, more or less extended, of additional passages of 
Scripture appertaining to the general subject we are 
considering. Among those passages which are claimed 
as teaching or implying a distinction of Persons in the 
nature of God, are a few verses at the beginning of the 
Gospel by John. 

Before entering directly upon an examination of this 
passage, it may be well to introduce a remark of Prof. 
Knapp, of Halle, on the “‘ hypotheses of theologians”’ 
concerning the imputation of Adam’s sin; as it is 
appropriate to the subject in hand. He says: ‘‘ The 
greatest difficulties with respect to this doctrine have 
arisen from the fact, that many have treated what is 
said by Paul in the fifth of Romans—a passage wholly | 
popular, and anything but formally exact and didac- 
tic—in a learned and philosophical manner, and have 


186 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


defined terms used by him in a loose and popular way, 
by logical and scholastic distinctions.’’* 

New, it will doubtless be granted on all hands, that 
if any writer of the New Testament treats his subject 
‘“¢in a learned and philosophical manner,”’ it is the 
apostle Paul ; and that the apostle John, above all these 


‘Cin a loose and popular way,” 


writers, uses language 
and not ‘in a learned and philosophical manner,”’ 
with “‘logical and scholastic distinctions,’ or ‘‘ formal 
exactness.’? There is often some great subject which 
fills his mind, that he presents over and over again, 
either in several different forms of expression or in 
nearly the same form, to explain or wmpress the general 
truth. Thus in John 1: 13, those who become the 
sons of God, the writer says, ‘‘ were born, not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
of God.’’ Here-the same truth is presented in a dif- 
ferent form, four times; three times negatively, and 
one positively. So in the seventh verse: ‘ And he 
confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not the 
Christ.’?? Here the same truth is stated three times. 
The same thing is done in chapter 17 : 8, 9, 12, and 
many other places. In 1 John 1 : 1-3, the same va- 
ried form of expression is used, repeating substantially 
the same important truth several times; and stating 
other truths two or three times each, before the end of 
the sentence: ‘‘ That which was from the beginning, 
which we have heard, which we have seen with our 


* Theology, p. 274. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 187 


eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have 
handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was mant- 
fested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show 
unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, 
and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen 
and heard, declare we unto you.’’ Here the fact of 
this apostle’s having, in the same or in different ways, 
come to the knowledge of what he declares, is men- 
tioned seven times; the manifestation of it, twice ; 
and his making it known to them, three times—all in 
the same sentence. The same thing is done in chapter 
2:11, and 3:9. So in Rev. 22 : 13, the same writer 
says: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the 
end, the first and the last”’—the same thought, pre- 
sented in three sets of terms. 

It is, then, according to the genius of this writer, to 
repeat an important truth which he would express and 
enforce upon the minds of others, in similar or in very 
different language, several times ; but “‘in a loose and 
popular way,’’ without “logical or scholastic distinc- 
tions.”? This is true, far beyond the proper limits of 
Hebrew parallelism. Let us examine and see if the 
same thing is not manifest, in a few verses at the be- 
ginning of his Gospel. 

‘In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos 
was with God, and the Logos was God. The.same was 
in the beginning with God. All things were made 
by him ; and without him was not anything made that 
was made. In him was life; and the life was the 
light of men. And the Logos was made flesh and 


188 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as 
of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and 
truth.?? 

The point now to be considered is; Whether the 
great object of the sacred writer here, is not, to teach 
and maintain the Supreme Divinity of the Logos, con- 
sidered as the Reveaer of the Godhead in the works 
of creation, providence, and redemption; without any 
reference to the distinction of three Persons in the 
nature of God himself, as since maintained. In other 
words ; whether his object is not to teach us that Hr 
who makes these revelations of the Godhead, is not a 
derived or subordinate divinity, like some gods (e. g. 
the Aons) of the heathen philosophers of that day, nor 
a Divine attribute ; but the true God himself, denomi- 


_nated the Logos, with reference to these manifesta- . 


tions. So God is denominated Jehovah with reference 
to his self-existence ; and Lord or King, with refer- 


ence to his supreme dominion ; and Creator, Father, 


Shepherd, and the like, with reference to some par- 
ticular aspect or relation of the Supreme Being, on ac- 
count of which the appropriate name in each case is 
applied to him. It is no less true that he is the Su- 
preme God, whether designated by one or another of 
these names ; whether occasionally or generally, tem- 
porarily or permanently, so designated. We are to 
look through the name—the Shekinah—the manifesta- 
tion in the flesh, up to Him who thus manifests him- 
self. He is the Locos. 

If these things are so, then the sacred writer of the 


sseaalsa “pe ae 
I -* Wis 
Re aie, 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 189 


passage before us asserts that the Logos is the true 
God, according to his frequent manner of stating many 
truths, fowr times, in somewhat varied forms of ex- 
pression: ‘* The Logos existed at the beginning of all 
things—in eternity ; and the Logos was of one and the 
same nature with God; I mean, the Logos was the 
true God himself. This Logos was not a Divine attri- 
bute, nor a derived being, but was eternally one and 
the same with the true God himself.”? More briefly, 
‘The Logos—the Revealer of the Godhead—existed 
before the creation began, and was eternally one and 
the same with the true-God.’’ In illustration of his 
meaning, the writer goes on to say, here and elsewhere : 
‘* All things were made by him; and without him was 
not anything made that was made. He was the living 
God, the light of the world, the author and communi- 
cator of Divine and saving knowledge to men. This 
Logos became incarnate; and as the Shekinah—the 
Son of God on earth—the only beloved of the Father— 
he dwelt among us, abounding in grace and truth suited 
to the wants of men. 

The only real difficulty in this passage, appertains 
_ to the preposition -790s—with. And why should any 
stumble at a particle, when we have the clear light of 
revelation shining upon our path? It is a connecting 
word, used with very great latitude,—as mentioned in 
the first chapter of this work,—the meaning of which 
is often determined entirely by the connection in which 
it stands, or by the general nature of the subject intro- 
duced, if not fully stated. The meaning of this prepo- 


/ 
190 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


sition when applied to men, may differ, in important 
respects, from its meaning when applied to God; as 
do a multitude of other words. Shall we, then, fix on 
some general, scholastic, or metaphysical meaning of 
this word, for the true sense ; or on one which gives a 
metaphysical sense to the phrase; as though the 
apostle John had been a disciple of Plato, or been 
trained in some modern school of metaphysics? The 
light which the Scriptures shed upon the general sub- 
ject,—the being, and the attributes and relations of 
the true God,—must be our main guide. It would be 
hardly fair to carry back the “ logical and scholastic 
distinctions”? of the present day, or those of the Nicene 
or Athanasian fathers, and apply them to explain the. 
simple, artless writings of the beloved disciple John. 
Such metaphysical speculations would have been of 
little service to his plain, unlettered, common-sense 
readers or hearers; and it is somewhat doubtful, to 
say the least, whether they contribute much to the edi- 
fication of the church, in faith-and in holiness, at the 
present day. 

It is here suggested, with very great deference, 
whether the sense already given of the passage before 
us, as teaching the Supreme Divinity of the Logos— 
the true God revealing himself,—does not exhaust tts 
meaning, and express tts ultimate design and tts 
whole bearing ; without supposing it to teach any dis- 
dinctions or distinct Persons at all, in the nature of 
the Godhead itself,—that is, “‘ physically or meta- 
physically considered,’’—but only a different mani- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 191 


festation of the one God, suited to the exigencies of — 
the case. 

What evidence is there that the declaration, ‘‘ the 
Logos was with God,’? was understood by any of the 
early Christians not imbued with the Platonic or New 
Platonic philosophy, to mean, or that it does in fact 
mean, with him social/y—with him in any proper sense 
in which one “ distinct person,’’ or one ‘‘ distinct and 
competent moral agent,’?? may be.said to be with an- 
other—living, consulting, deliberating, and covenanting 
with him? Does the Greek preposition here (gos) 
necessarily or properly teach this, in reference to the 
true God? Such is, indeed, the view which the pas- 
sage presents when seen through the indigo-medium of 
Platonic or Nicene philosophy ; but is it so when 
viewed by common sense, in the light of the revealed 
character of God? If you assume that it does, at the 
outset of the investigation, you assume the very point 
in debate ; and the argument begs the question. But 
this cannot be assumed, while the question is, What 
does the phrase, “the Logos was with God,’’ mean ? 
Does the use of this preposition (gos—with) in the 
Greek or English classics, and in reference to men 
simply, decide what it means in the present case, in 
reference to the true God ? Can it be supposed that 
a doctrine which is really of so much importance as is 
claimed for that of “‘ three Persons in the nature of 
God,”? furnishing “infinitely blessed society in the 
Divine mind,’’ is left to depend very much, or af all, 
upon the use of a preposition, whose meaning is often 


192 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


determined entirely by the nature of the subject and 
the connection in which it is found ? 7 
Here are two cases, distinct and unlike in their na- 
ture. One is that of a man being or living with 
another man. The meaning of this is obvious; for 
we know there are two such men: it is a thing well 
understood. But when, in the other case, we come to 
apply this human language to the infinite God, it be- 
comes a very different thing. We are met with the 
Scripture doctrine of the unrry of God. ‘The oft- 
repeated declaration, “‘ Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our 
God is oNE JEHOVAH!” stands on the sacred page 
just as it always has done. It is not expunged, re- 
called, or explained to mean ‘‘ three Persons in the 
nature of God.’? We are often told, indeed, that the 
Divine unity is taught in Scripture, not in opposi- 
tion to a Trinity in the nature of the Godhead, but in 
opposition to idols. But this, so far as appears, is 
simple assumption. We are told, on good authority, 
“that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is 
none other God but one.”? We are not to suppose the 
declaration of the Divine unity to be made simply in 
opposition to dwmb idols, but to everything which the 
plain common sense of men regards as. more than 
‘Cone God ;”? whether dumb idols, or “‘three distinct 
and competent moral agents”? supposed to be united in 
one substratum, and furnishing ‘“‘ infinitely blessed so- 
ciety in God,” or whatever else amounts to the same 
thing. Christ himself taught the same doctrine : ‘‘Hear, 
O Israel ; The Lord our God is one Lord.??—Mark 12 : 


ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 193 


29. This was a point well established, and settled in 
the Scriptures, if anything can be so regarded. The 
beloved disciple John should be expected to teach 
nothing contrary to it, or inconsistent with it. Espe- 
cially, in so important a matter as that presented in 
the common theory of the Trinity, relative to the na- 
ture or mode of the Divine existence, it seems alto- 
gether natural and reasonable to expect that it would 
not be left to depend mainly on the meaning of the 
preposition in this passage, and on a few other passages 
of difficult if not doubtful interpretation. It has been 
soberly asked, Why did not Christ deny the truth of 
the common theory, if it is not well founded? He did 
not undertake to deny, or name, all the erroneous views 
of Divine truth which have been entertained from that 
day to the present. He and his apostles taught great 
cardinal doctrines, which are to be our guide on parti- 
cular and difficult points, and in opposition to which 
nothing should be received as Divine truth on the au- 
thority of human interpretation.* 


* At this point in our preparation for the press, and the very day 
that the first chapter was sent to the printer, our attention was directed 
to an Article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for J anuary, 1850, on the pas- 
sage before us, by that accomplished scholar, Prof. Stuart—the Cory- 
pheus of Biblical literature in our country, and now a distinguished 
veteran in the cause; an Article which we rejoice in the opportunity 
of perusing at this stage of our progress. Hence, our remarks on some 
points may be a little extended, and there may be some repetition of 
thoughts just before expressed. We are gratified to see that the vene- 
rable Professor’s mind, though in its crumbling temement, is so clear, 
SO vigorous, so active—even as it was in the days of his earlier publi- 
cations,—and withal, so tender and devout. May he yet be spared, if 


2 


194 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


When we find a word, like this Greek or English 
preposition, sometimes used in application to men with 
reference to society,—much oftener in English than in 
Greek,—we should inquire how it can be applied to 
God, consistently with what is elsewhere plainly taught 
respecting him; remembering that he is not “ such an 
one as ourselves.”? In interpreting such language, 
having reference to the ‘‘ one Jehovah,’ it is evident 
that it should not be understood in a literal or a quasi- 


literal sense, as when one man is said to be with an- 


other; any more than the language which has been 
‘understood to teach ‘‘ eternal generation,” ‘‘ eternal 
procession,’” or ‘ transubstantiation ;’’ or that which 
represents God as hearkening, hearing, and keeping a 
memorandum-book, in order to aid his recollections of 
the good conduct of men.—(Mal. 3:16.) It must, 
then, be understood in a modified sense, and some other 
interpretation must be given to the preposition in this 
case, than that which indicates two Persons, with the 
attributes of two distinct and competent moral agents, 
supposed to be united in one substratum, in order to 
avoid, as much as possible, the untenable position of 
acknowledging more Gods than one. 

With respect to the meaning of the phrase in ques- 
tion, Prof. Stuart remarks that “the word m™Q0S— 
with, designates, in its primary and literal sense, a 
space-relation, viz. the proximity of one thing to an- 


it please God, to accomplish still more for the cause of sacred learning 
and truth, before he has occasion to utter, with his latest breath, the 
petition, “ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 


Svs . f 
ee eae we , " 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 195 


other. It may also have a kindred secondary and tro- 
pical sense ; in which case it means in respect to, as to, 
wm reference to, according to, on account of, and the 
hike. But plainly none of these or the like tropical 
senses fit the passage before us.?’* 

It would surely not be very modest in us to set up a 
claim to an acquaintance with the proper use and 
meaning of this Greek preposition, superior to that of 
the learned and venerable Professor and teacher, at 
whose feet we have delighted to sit, and should rejoice 
again to sit, and learn. No such claim at all is pre- 
ferred; nor, if preferred, would it be true. But may 
we not be permitted to inquire whether the conclusion 
to which this distinguished Professor has arrived, at the 
close of the above paragraph, 7s sound ? The princi- 
ple on which we had formed a different judgment in 
the case, and which we had written down above, before 
seeing his article, is substantially the same with that 
which he has given on p. 86. In reference to the mean- 
ing of such language applied to God, as “ laughing at 
the attempts of his enemies,’? and “ even loving and 
hating,’ he remarks, ‘‘ our exegetical guide, in all 
such cases, is the nature and perfections of God.’ To 
this we fully assent. And this is the light by which 
we hope to be guided in these very inquiries—THE RE- 
VEALED NATURE AND PERFECTIONS oF Gop. Is it 
not reasonable to suppose, that, if we are really and 
truly guided by this light, without ever substituting for 


* Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan., 1850; pp. 31-2. 


196 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


it the mysterious dimness of that dark-lantern—scho- 
lastic philosophy,—we shall come to the correct re- 
sult ? 

As Prof. Stuart plainly shows, the preposition here 
cannot with any propriety be understood ‘* in its pri- 
mary and literal sense,”? but must be understood ain 
a modified sense.”? If so, how much must that sense 
be modified to “ fit the passage before us ?’’ Evidently, 
just so much as our chosen “ exegetical guide”’ shall 
plainly indicate. Is it quite clear that this Greek pre- 
position, rendered with, is not, in this passage, used in 
the “ secondary and tropical sense’? which he has ex- 
pressed by the terms “in respect to, as to, i refer- 
ence to 2? Is it not evident that the preposition is 
here used adverbdially, in the sense of the noun which 
follows it ? 

Liddell and Scott, in their Greek and English Lexi- 
con, —a learned and able work,—give to this preposi- 
tion, ‘as classic usage, the sense of im reference to, in 
respect to: e. g. “mds tov hoyor, im reference to the 
matter.”’—Plat. Symp. 199 B., etc. Donnegan does 
the same thing. And in Heb. 1:7, we find, a! ros 
" péy robs &yyéhous Aéyev; which Prof. Stuart, in his Com- 
mentary, (v. 2, p. 55), renders ‘ Moreover, with 
respect to the angels it is said,”? &c. Should it be 
claimed that there is some difference in the use of the 
preposition in this passage and in the first verse of 
John, the reply is, how is that ascertained ? Is 1t not 
by an examination of the passages themselves ? But 
if such examination, in the light of the general sub- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY: 197 


ject—“ our exegetical guide,””—requires us to give to 
the preposition in the passage before us the sense 
which has already been expressed, why not act on the 
Same general principle by which we are guided else- 
where, and give it here that sense which the nature of 
the subject requires? The two joint lexicographers 
above mentioned, and the American editor, Prof. Dris- 
ler, say also, that this preposition in the accusative is 
often merely periphrastic, and used adverbially ; “as, 
190 Blay, me0¢ dvdyxny, by force, forcibly ; moos piltar, 
im a friendly way.’? Schleusner likewise gives two 
examples from the writings of Sophocles, in which this 
preposition, with the noun following it, is used in the 
same manner 5 7905 xavgor, seasonably, meds doyqv, an- 
grily—spitefully. These are given only as examples 
of its periphrastic or adverbial use. 

It seems, then, that in accordance with classic usage, 
this preposition in the passage under examination may 
be periphrastic, or used adverbially in the sense of the 
noun following it: ‘The Logos existed, or was ex- 
isting, in respect to the Divine nature itself—divinely, 
i. e. in the condition of God—as very God,’ (but as 
yet unrevealed,) which will presently be further con- 
sidered. ‘There is one other passage at least, in the 
New Testament, where this preposition with the noun 
following it, is used in the same way, and it is so ren- 
dered in the margin of our Bibles. James 4:5: 
‘“‘'The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy ;” 
mos pOordy, enviously, in the margin. This use of the 


198 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


preposition, therefore, is by no means singular. It is 
so used in classic authors, and in the New Testament. 

Next to this use of the preposition, we resort to the 
teachings of our common “ exegetical guide :’? what 
says that, in regard to the meaning of the passage be- 
fore us? ‘‘ Hear, O Israel; Jehovah our God is one 
Jehovah! There is none other God but one.” 

Now, suppose this Greek preposition (790s) to be 
found used in application to some man, who is spoken 
of under several names, as General, Governor, Judge— 
names of office at some time, but by common usage be- 
come proper names, used on all occasions (and in ac- 
cordance with the same human usage, Jehovah was so 
called, denoting his self-extstence, but afterward often 
used simply as a proper name, without any special 
reference to that idea,—and so the Logos, to denote 
God revealing himself); suppose this preposition to 
be found in a connection where the nature of the sub- 
ject plainly shows the sense to be, in respect to man— 
in the widest sense of the term, viz., his human na- 
ture ; would not such a sense be allowable in this case, 
unless we could find some other instances, in which it 
has exactly the same meaning? If the nature of the 
subject should be our guide in one case, why not in the 
other? Or, must we suppose something metaphysical 
in that man’s nature, denoting distinction or society in 
himself, and give it that sense? Is this according to 
the teachings of “* our exegetical guide,’’ or of common 
sense? Itis the principle of which we speak. 

We are told, very justly, in the same article (p. 16), 


—> v: 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 199 


that the meaning of the Greek word in this passage, 
rendered was in our version, is, ‘‘ was existing, or was 
already in existence.”? If so, why can we not properly 
give to the preposition which follows it, the sense of, as 
to, in respect to, or consider it as used periphrasti- 
cally, and present a most important meaning of the 
passage, without being driven to the necessity of say- 
ing, or implying that we mean, ‘‘ God was with him- 
self 2”? 

We may suppose the sacred writer of this passape, 
to have had in his eye a notion of some of the philoso- 
phers of his time, respecting the AZons—a kind of sub- 
ordinate gods, emanations from the supreme Divinity 
—a notion adopted by some of the philosophizing or 
heathenizing teachers of Christianity ; and that he ex- 
presses in the passage before us, the proper meaning of 
the word Logos ; a word (or its equivalent) then in use 
among the Jews, and well understood; at least by the 
more enlightened part of them. According to this view 
of the case, the sacred writer presents his thoughts 
with remarkable skill, and in a most methodical man- 
ner; admirably adapted to correct erroneous views of 
the subject, and to enlighten and confirm his readers 
in the knowledge of the truth. He speaks : 

1. Of the Being himself,—here called the Logos,— 
antecedent to all Divine manifestation—{vs. 1, 2). 
What the writer says of him, at the outset, is con- 
tained in four statements, or affirmations. 

(1.) The first is, that “at the very beginnng of 
the creation, the Logos was existing ;’? or was already 


200 A BIBLICAL TRINITY: 


in Sa implying that he was prepaevent 
and eternal. 

(2.) The second is a little explanatory of the first, 
and is as much as to say: ‘‘ The Logos was already 
existing 100s. toy Oedr, in respect to his Godhead—the 
Divine nature itself, or wn the condition of God ;’ no 
manifestation of God having yet been made. The 
sacred writer here speaks of this Being it one particu- 
lar point of view, viz.: in reference to-his Godhead. 
This method of speaking is frequently and familiarly 
employed. Ina time of great: political excitement, a 
man wholly incompetent to the office is appomted a 
Judge. A political opponent says of him: “* Well—I 
am satisfied of one thing; the Judge will not live — 
long.”’? ‘* What!’? says another, ‘‘ will his enemies 
take his life?’ ‘No: I speak of the Judge, not 
the man.”? In this common way of expressing our 
thoughts, the writer speaks of the truly Divine nature 
of this Being, designating him by the name, ‘‘ the Lo- 
gos,’ long before the occasion of its application to him 
occurred. One reason of this is very obvious ; he was 
about to speak of the manifestations of this Being, 
particularly of his manifestation in the flesh. Such a 
use of special names,—as we have before had occasion 
to observe,—is very common. Thus we say; ‘ Abra- 
ham was born in Ur of the Chaldees’’—ninety-nine 
years before the name was given him. 

(8.) The third is a brief statement, in plain terms, 
designed to confirm what had been said before: ‘* The 
Logos was God ;” or, was existing as the true God 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 201 


himself ; though as yet uwnrevealed. Therefore, he 
was not a derwed being, nor an emanation from God. 

(4.) The fourth is a comprehensive declaration, 
presenting in one statement the substance of the three 
preceding ones, viz: “‘ The same Being of whom I 
speak, was, at the very beginning of all things, ex- 
isting as it respects the Divine nature only—as God ; 
when he began to manifest himself, whether in the 
production of spirit or of matter, then it was, that I 
speak of him as the Logos; i. e. God manifesting 
himself. ”? So much, relative to the Being himself. 
The writer speaks: 

2. Of the manifestation of this Being,—in ae re- 
spects.—(vs. 3, 4). 

(1.) In creation : “ He created all things,—not one 
thing was created without his pence, Of course, 
he was not himself created. 

(2.) In redemption: “ In him was “fe 3” the whole 
of life—self-existent and spiritual life; “and this life 
was the source of Divine and saving knowledge to 
men.’? ‘The writer speaks : 

3. Of the moral condition of those on whom he un- 
dertook to bestow spiritual life (v. 5): ‘ They were in 
the thickest moral darkness ; so thick, as not to com- 
prehend—receive and retain—the light which shone 
upon them.” : 

This appears to be essentially the view vio the Logos, 
which is presented by the sacred writer, in the first 
five verses of his Gospel. He makes the same general 


Statement, setting forth the Supreme Divinity of the 
g* 


202 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Logos several times, according to his frequent manner 
of stating important truth, in varied language, and 
with some diversity of thought, all serving to explain, 
confirm, and impress the general truth, and partaking 
more or less of the nature of Hebrew parallelism. 
Who shall say that the passage, thus understood, does 
not evince consummate wisdom, skill, order, harmony, 
aud knowledge of the subject, in the sacred writer ? 
He has, indeed, presented his thoughts. in the simple 
style of the Hebrew-Greek, or rather, we might say, 
in the Johannéan idiom; and it would be somewhat 
difficult to present each form of the thought literally, 
and at the same time fully, in the idiom of our own 
language; but not more difficult, than so to present 
many other truths contained im the original Scriptures. 
Could we enter exactly into the views of this writer, 
and see all the circumstances present to his mind, as 
he saw them, there would doubtless be far less diffi- 
culty in understanding this passage, than has generally 
been felt. This, however, is not the fault of the sacred 
writer, but of the reader. It has been well said,* 
that ‘‘ every writer has special reference to his own 
times ; to those for whom he primarily writes ; not to 
future times, so as to neglect his contemporaries. The 
obscurity which arises from this mode of writing is not 
a necessary one ; but results merely from the change 
which time makes in languages. It is an obscurity 
common to all good ancient writers ; for the ground of 


* Stuart’s Ernesti’s Interp. Andover ed., 1822. p. 61. 


a 
fig — - 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 203 


it lies in the ignorance of later readers, and not in 
the writers.’ 

No one who may have a different view of the above 
passage from that which has just been given, if he has 
a manly, opposing argument in store, will attempt to 
express this view deterally throughout, in English 
terms, according to the Hebrew-Greek or Johannean 
idiom ; like saying, ‘‘ Jehovah our Gods is one Jeho- 
vah,”’ or “‘ calling Charlemagne the great emperors, to 
denote special dignity.”? An exact literal rendering of 
many passages, without any explanatory words, would 
do violence to the sense, or to the idiom of our lan- 
guage, or both. 

We have been confirmed in the preceding view of 
the passage before us, by the manner in which the 
word Logos is used in the Targums, or translations 
into the Chaldee of the Hebrew Scriptures. ‘‘ When 
the Jews returned from Babylon, the mass of them 
spoke the Chaldee language, modified in some degree 
by the ancient Hebrew. Hence it became necessary 
that this same mass should have the Scriptures trans- 
lated mto the Chaldee or Hebrzeo-Chaldaic dialect.??— 
(Stuart). Different portions of the ancient Scriptures 
were translated by different individuals; and hence 
they received names accordingly. Taken together, 
they were called the Targums ; and the translators, 
- the Targumists. We remember to have heard it long 
since stated, by competent authority, that the phrase, 
‘the Word of Jehovah,” is used for Jehovah six hun- 
dred times in these Targums. We wish here to intro- 


204 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


duce Prof. Stuart’s account of the use of this phrase in 
these books. He says, in the article already referred 
to (pp. 20, 21): 

‘¢ This expression [the Logos or Word of Jehovah] 
is employed in the Targums, in cases almost without 
number, instead of the simple Jehovah or Elohim of 
the Hebrew text. In particular, wherever the Hebrew 
represents the Divine Being as in action, or as reveal- 
ing himself by his works, or by communications to in- 
dividuals ; in a word, wherever God operates ad extra 
[externally] and thus reveals himself, it is common for 
the Targumists to say that his Word operates, or 
makes the revelation. A few Si itiee are necessary 
to show the manner of this. 

“In Ex. 19:17, the Hebrew runs thus: ‘ And 
Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet 
with God ;’ in the Targum, ‘To meet with the Word 


of the Lord.’ Job 42 : 9, (Heb.): ‘ The Lord accepted 


Job ;’ in the Targum, ‘ The Word of the Lord accepted 
Job.2 Ps. 2: 4, (Heb.): ‘The Lord shall have them 
in derision ;? in the Targum, ‘ Zhe Word of the Lord 
shall deride them.’ Gen. 26: 3, (Heb.): ‘I will be 
with thee ;? Targum, ‘ My Word shall be thy helper.’ 
Gen. 39 : 2, (Heb.): ‘The Lord was with Joseph ;’ 
Targum, ‘ The Word of the Lord was with Joseph.’ 
Lightfoot, that great master of Rabbinical learning, 
says of these and the like cases: ‘ So, all along, that 
kind of phrase is most familiar amongst them.’—Hor. 
Bib. in Johan. 1:1. Specially is this the case, 
when God is represented as transacting affairs of mo- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 205 


ment between himself and his people. Thus in Lev. 
26:46, (Heb.): ‘ These are the statutes which the 
Lord made between him and the children of Israel ;’ 
Targum, ‘Between his Word and the children of 
Isracl.? Deut. 5:5, (Heb.): ‘I stood between you 
and the Lord, at that time;’? Targum, ‘I stood be- 
tween you and the Word of the Lord.? Deut. 20: 1, 
(Heb.): ‘ The Lord thy God is with thee ;’? Targum, 
‘ Jehovah is thy God, his Word is with thee.’ 
“Such is the striking usage of the Targumists, in 
respect to the phrase Word of God. They carry it 
indeed still further, and often express by Memra [the 
Chaldee Word, in question] the emphatic pronouns my- 
self, thyself, himself... ... +... Thus Memra 
[the Logos] came, by usage among the Jews, to be 
employed not only to designate God as acting, or 
making some revelation of himself or of his will, but 
to be employed as a kind of intensive periphrastic pro- 
noun to designate God himself. The transition was 
not unnatural. That which is often employed to ex- 
press God revealed, may easily come at last to express 
the idea of God simply considered.”’ 
Here we have the nucleus of the whole subject. 
The Chaldee word for Logos, designating God reveal- 
ing himself, was in use and well understood among. 
the Jews, in the time of John; the Hebrew being a 
dead language. We are gratified in having so full an 
account of the matter, before it is too late to make use 
of it, in illustration of the subject. Considering all the 
circumstances of the case, the Logos was the most 


206 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


appropriate word John could have used to designate 
God revealing himself to man, in a degree and with 
a clearness and fullness which he had never done be- 
fore. ‘Christ, the Light of the world, was the first 
who fully developed the Godhead: ‘No man hath 
seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is 
in the bosom of the Father, he hath deelared him.’ In 
the connection in which this passage stands, the impli- 
cation is that neither Moses, nor any other Old Testa- 
ment writer, has made a full disclosure of the gospel- 
doctrine respecting God. ‘ Grace and truth came by 
Jesus Christ.’ ’—(Stuart.) God revealed himself by 
Moses, and by other ancient prophets, but preém- 
inently so by Jesus Christ. He plainly “ declared,” 
or revealed, the Godhead to man. ‘* God in Christ?’ 
was God (the Logos) manifesting himself in the work 
of redemption. 

The phrase, the Logos or Word of God, anciently 
had three meanings. The Jewish sense was, Jehovah. 
This has been particularly noticed. The Alexandrine 
Jewish sense was that of an emanation from the Su- 
preme Being; not, in the fullest and highest sense, 
the Supreme God. If we understand it correctly, 
Philo Judaeus Alexandrinus used the term in this 
sense. The third, or heathen sense, was that of an 
inferior god, ‘‘ the creator of the world ;”’ which some 
of the oriental philosophers ‘‘ distinguished from the 
Supreme Divinity by the name of demiurge.””—(Mo- 
sheim.) Plato calls it intelligence, creator, (demiurge,) 
Locos, and wisdom.—( Knapp.) 


Rr a ee ee ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 207 


Other periphrastic modes of expression are used to 
designate the true God, beside the one already dwelt 
upon. Ina multitude of instances, as every attentive 
“reader of the Scriptures must have observed, the name. 
of Jehovah, or name of the Lord, or of God, is used for 
Jehovah, or God himself ; my name, for me ; and thy 
name, for thee. We shall refer to a few of them. 

1 Chr. 22:7: “It was in my mind to build an 
house unto the name of the Lorn (Jehovah) my God ;”? 
for, “unto Jehovah my God.” So, 2 Chr. 6: 7, 10. 
In Ps. 20:1: ‘The Lorp hear thee in the day of 
trouble ; the name of the God of Jehovah defend thee ;?? 
for, “the God of Jacob defend thee.’ So, Ps. 44 : 
205° 695:°30 3113-2 38.5 "Rom.. 22:24, ef al. 

My name is very often used for me; as in 2 Sam. 
7:13: “ He shall build an house for my name?”— for 
Men, L Kings}. 25-8 ° 181955 1) Chr 298, 
40.5 2: Chyr-. 62 °8,°9:;-Pa-°01 2143 Jer. 23: OFS Zech - 
Pere Malidceh 2 pone aie et tal. 

Thy name is, in a great number of instances, used 
for thee. 2 Sam. 22:50: “I will sing praises unto 
thy name’’— unto thee.”? So, Ps.9:23;18:49; 61: 
arOO: 2s 702 is 99 2 85-145 91; 2's John 19 98 
Acts 9:14, et passim. 

Some periphrastic mode of designating the true God, 
was very common among the Hebrews. One reason of 
this may be found in that reverence which they cherished 
toward God, and manifested especially toward that “‘in- 
effable name,”? JeHovan, by which he was called. 
After the captivity in Babylon this reverence degene- 


208 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


rated into superstition; so that the Jews ceased to 
repeat the name, and forgot its pronunciation. The 
Seventy render it by Kégus, Lorn, even in Ex. 6: 3. 
So do our English translators, generally ; and, as the 
reader has. doubtless observed, it is, in such cases, 
printed in small capitals, to distinguish it from another 
word, which is also translated Lord. | 

In view of what has been already advanced, we feel 
constrained to dissent from the following statements, 
contained in the learned and able article to which 
reference has repeatedly been made: ‘‘'To say, then, 
that the Logos is with him, must mean, that there is 
a diversity of some kind between the Logos and God ; 
although the writer has not undertaken to define in 
what that diversity consists.”—p. 31. ‘ An intimate 
connection [or community] between God and the Lo- 
gos may be asserted, and be credible, without any ex- 
planation of the manner of that connection.’”’—p. 37. 

But we had before been told by this venerable 
author (p. 16), that the Greek verb (4) rendered was, 
means here was existing : “‘ At the beginning, the 
Logos was existing.’? How does it appear that this 
verb has not the same meaning in the very next mem- 
ber of the same sentence? Does the nature of the 
subject prove this? It does not.so appear. Does the 
language of the second member of the sentence prove 
it? If so, it must be the word xpos—with, or this in 
connection with the word God. But if we follow “ our 
exegetical guide,’’ and at the same time duly consider 
the meaning which, according to this learned Professor, 


‘ 


° wy 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 209 


and able lexicographers, this preposition sometimes 
has, shall we not be constrained to say, that the mean- 
‘ing of this member of the sentence is: ‘‘ The Logos 
was existing 7m respect to God—as to the Divine na- 
ture, or very God ;’’—especially, when it is immedi- 
ately added: “‘ the Logos was God,” or was existing 
as “true God—supreme God ??? There would then 
be “some diversity between God and the Logos”— 
the same as between God unrevealed and God reveal- 
ing himself. This sense of the passage does not re- 
quire more expletive words, not in the original, to give 
in English the full sense of the text, than do a great 
many passages of the original Scriptures; as any scho- 
lar may.see by looking into those Scriptures, and as 
any English reader may see by looking at the italic 
words in his English Bible. (Leave out those italic 
words, and see how it will read.) This author clearly 
shows, on pp. 82, 33, that there are many passages of 
Scripture which cannot be translated literally and give 
the sense, because our language or our idiom is not 
competent so to do vt ; a defect not peculiar, but com- 
mon to the translation of all languages. Nor does the 
passage before us, understood as above, and expressed 
in some of the forms already given, depart more from 
the literal meaning of the original words, than is requi- 
site In giving the true sense of many other passages of 
the same sacred writer. ; 

In John 14 : 23, it is said: “If a man love me, he 
will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and 
we will come (7gds) unto him, and make our abode 


210 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


(wa9%) with him.’? Who thinks of understanding this 
language literally? Plainly it is to be understood in 
a modified sense; and just so much modified as the 
nature of the subject requires. It doubtless expresses 
high favor, intimate communion and fellowship; and of 
course 1s understood in a modified sense. Bloomfield, 
remarking on this passage, says: ‘‘ God is said to 
come to men, when he promises or bestows peculiar 
benefits on them; also to dwell or remain with those 
whom he especially favors ; and also to leave and de- 
, part from those whom he ceases to benefit.” 

Christ says, John 14: 11: ‘Believe me, that I am 
an the Father, and the Father in me.?? How was the 
Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son? Can 
we say, ** David was in Jonathan, and Jonathan in 
David?” If the nature of the subject is to have any- 
thing to do with determining the sense of the passage 
just quoted, why not also of the declaration, “the 
Logos was with God ?” If we may interpret the 
former phraseology in a modified sense, as denoting 
intimate spiritual, union, fellowship, friendship, why 
not, in accordance with the nature of the subject, in- 
terpret the /atter declaration, as denoting the oneness 
and sameness of the Logos with the real nature of God 
—with very God himself? This would be exactly in 
accordance with the teachings of “our exegetical 
guide.’ ; 

We had occasion, in the first chapter of this work, to 
introduce a remark of Prof. Stuart relative to the use 
of the preposition dia, in Rom. 5:19. He is right in 


‘ 
. 
; . 

ee Se en en 


Ape Oe ae ree een oot) a 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 211 


saying that we cannot ‘‘ lay any stress on the preposi- 
tion itself as determining either for or against’? the point 
in question there; but must examine “ the general 
nature of the whole phrase ;’>—yes, and what is else- 
where revealed respecting the same subject. So we say 
of the preposition ~9¢s—with, in the passage before us. 
To judge of its meaning here, we must look not only at 
“the general nature of the whole phrase,’? but at the 
general subject of the Godhead as revealed in the 
Scriptures ; in other words, we must proceed in our 
investigations, in the light of “our exegetical guide.”’ 
It would not be in exact keeping with such an occupa- 
tion, to go into hair-splitting niceties as to the classic use 
of a Greek preposition (though such use favors our in- 
terpretation), employed by a fisherman of Galilee, in 
the plain and simple style of the apostle John, when 
its meaning often—not to say generally—depends on 
the character of the company in which it is found. 

In deciding such a question as this, it is important 
to consider the great lJatitude of meaning with which 
prepositions are used. Schleusner gives to the Greek 
preposition zg0s, twenty-five meanings, when used with 
the single case which it governs in the passage before us 
—the accusative. The last one is the meaning we have 
given to it in this passage. To dia, he gives thirty 
meanings, beside subordinate ones; and to ev, thirty- 
one meanings. The proper meaning in each case is to 
be ascertamed by actual examination. In English, 
Webster gives to the preposition with, fifteen mean- 
ings ; by, fourteen; fo, twenty-eight or twenty-nine. 


212 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


He adds: “‘ In the foregoing explanation of to, it is to 
be considered that the definition given is not always 
the sense of to by itself, but the sense rather of the 
word preceding it, or connected with it, or of to in 
connection with other words.”? What is the meaning 
_ of the preposition fo, in these lines of Watts 2 


“ OQ, may I live to reach the place 
Where he unveils his lovely face !’* 


The meaning evidently is not, “O, may I live long 
enough to reach the place ;” but, ‘‘ so as to—so that 
I may reach the place.’? The foregoing remark of 
Webster is true of prepositions in general, and of the 
Greek preposition in question. 

Our object in these remarks is, to show that it will 
not do to build an important theory—important if 
true—on a preposition, the meaning of which often 
depends entirely on the nature of the subject, or on the 
connection in which it is found. When Paul says that 
one class of persons are ‘‘ justified by faith,” and 
another class ‘‘ through faith ;?? we are not to suppose 
that he is speaking of different methods of justification. 

The interpretation already given to the passage be- 
fore us, “‘ the Logos was with God,”? does not modify 
the so-called /iteral meaning of the language, any more 
than the declaration, ‘I am im the Father and the 
Father in me,” is modified by the common interpreta- 


* Edition of 1816, and in Dwight. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 218 


tion of it. The same remark applies to the phrases, 
*¢ Walk an the Spirit? (Gal. 5:16; ‘So walk ye a 
him”? (Col. 2: 6); “‘ He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth 
in God, and God in him” (1 Jn. 4:16). The com- 
mon interpretation of this whole class of passages— 
which is not small—modifies their hteral meaning as 
much as does that given of the passage under examina- 
tion. Such modification of Scripture language is very 
often required by the nature of the subject, and is espe- 
cially to be expected in regard to the language of one 
who is remarkable for writing ‘‘ in a loose and popular 
way,” for common, plain, uneducated men; and not 
‘in a learned and philosophical manner,”’ for philo- 
sophical minds. We do this in both of the cases just 
mentioned, for the same reason; because the nature 
of the subject requires it. And why is it not as philo- 
logical, as philosophical, as rational, as scriptural, as 
unobjectionable an interpretation in the one case, as in 
the other ? 

Still, some insist ‘on interpreting the phrase in ques- 
tion literally—or quasi-literally—as denoting ‘so- 
ciety,’ and therefore a distinction of Persons in the 
very nature of the Godhead, in order to form that 
society. They begin by stating—truly enough—that 
the Bible teaches there is but one God; and that the 
Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is 
God. These they have called “‘ different revelations ;” 
the latter one implying a metaphysical distinction of 
three Persons in the very nature of this one God—in- 
stead of understanding it ina more simple way. They 


214 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


then fortify their position by the argument from igno- 
rance : ‘* We do not any of us know enough of the inter- 
nal nature of God to affirm, that these ‘ different revela- 
tions’ are contradictory, or that the facts which they 
disclose respecting the nature of God are absurd. We 
therefore conclude that they are true.”” ‘The proper 
answer to be given to such an argument is: ‘‘ Neither 
do you know enough of the internal nature of God, to 
assert that they are not contradictory and absurd: 
therefore, leave this subject where the Bible leaves it. 
Stop right THERE !” 

Now, let this argument change sides: let us apply 
it to the other view which has been taken of the 
Trinity ; viz., that God, revealed as the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost, acts in three different capa- 
cities and relations in the work of redemption. The 
argument is this: “‘ We do not any of us know enough 
of God and his government, to affirm that this view of 
the Trinity is not perfectly consistent with his nature, 
attributes, and relations to the universe. We are not 
competent to disprove this position, or show it to be 
absurd ; therefore, it must be true. Nay, more; this 
view of the Trinity, 7s true because it is so revealed, 
even if more than this is true; viz., even if there are 
three eternal distinctions or three Persons in the nature 
of the Godhead itself.’? 

But these “‘ different revelations”? are not contradic- 
tory; they are entirely consistent: it is only men’s 
interpretations of them that conflict. The revealed 
truths are not absurd; but only the constructions and 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 915 


inferences which men put upon and derive from them. 
Tt is not the sacred writer who needs to be freed from 
absurdity ; but the human interpreter, who, by his own 
interpretation, has created that absurdity. It is this 
interpreter who conflicts with revelation ; not revela- 
tion with itself. Sound philosophy does, indeed, re- 
quire us to receive these truths as they are revealed, 
but not his interpretation of them; for that is not re- 
vealed. The mistake lies in substituting the interpre- 
tations or inferences,—which he gets by looking at the 
Scriptures through antique scholastic glasses of uneven 
surface, discoloring and distorting them,—for the truths 
themselves as they are revealed. Would he only lay 
aside his scholastic glasses and look at what is actually 
revealed, with his naked eye and in the light of our 
common “ exegetical guide,”? he would see the truth as 
it iss If it were trwe—which is questionable—that 
there is a possibility of such a union of three Persons 
in the very nature of the Godhead, as a “society,” 
constituting but one God, still, we are not any of us 
competent to prove or to affirm such a union as a 
reality, until we have another revelation setting it 
forth ; for the Scriptures do not affirm it. We do not 
- gay that all this is as clear as sun-light } but it is so 
clear that common eyes, if they do not look at the object 
through a false medium, can see it plainly, in its 
length and breadth. The argument from ignorance, 
therefore, even if granted, proves just nothing at all, 
except that—we are ignorant. 


216 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. \ 


The error in respect to this subject, lies in three 
unwarrantable assumptions. 
1. In taking language appropriate to men, and ap- 


plying it to God as if literally true, and yet in © 


apparent opposition to the general tenor of the Scrip- 
tures, that there is but one Jehovah, one God, one infi- 
nite Divine agent in the universe. 

2. In ascribing to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
the properties or attributes of three distinct individu- 
alities—three distinct and competent Divine agents ; and 
then, to avoid the appearance and evade the charge of 
tritheism, uniting these three eternal distinctions, these 
three sets of Divine attributes, these three distinct and 
competent moral agents, in one substratum—an un- 
known, unintelligible, metaphysical non-entity (so far 
as appears), which does not alter the real facts of the 

case at all. 
‘The Independent for April 26, 1849, referring to a 
certain view of the Trinity, makes the following per- 
tinent and timely remarks: ‘‘It is no better than the 
guast emanation-theories of the Arian and Athanasian 
controversy—no better than the theory of three sets of 
attributes inhering in one substance; which to our 
view is nothing else than an empty clatter of words 
which in their combination have no real meaning. 
Discussion on such a subject—theory, hypothesis, ex- 
planation, or whatever it may call itself—the moment 
it attempts anything more than the ascertainment of 
the facts revealed in the record, sinks into an unfathom- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 217 


able abyss ; and therefore the faith of all Christians is 
constantly tending to work itself free of all dogmatism 
on this point, and to rest in the GREAT FACTS, With all 
the impenetrable mystery which hangs around them.”’ 
[We would rather say, ‘* whatever impenetrable mys- 
tery may hang around them.’’| Itis evenso. And 
these heavings which are sometimes very manifest in 
the Christian community, are no mistaken indications 
of an effort, on the one part, to throw off this burden of 
a theory, and on the other to retain it, as though it 
contained the very essence of all spiritual life. 

These three distinct and competent moral agents 
(so assumed) taken separately, are, for convenience’ 
sake, called Persons ; but thus united together, they 
are called one Being—one God. And yet, so repre- 
sented, they are—in every intelligible sense—three dig- 
tinct, eternal, harmonious Divinities, consulting and co- 
venanting together and communicating happiness to one 
another; though metaphysically united in one substance or 
substratum. ‘This ‘* one substance”? is only saying that 
they do not acknowledge, but (in words) wholly dis- 
card, the notion of three Gods. We accept it as an 
intentional disclaimer, but not as the truth, nor as, in 
any proper sense, a fit explanation of the truth. Theo- 
retically and virtually they are a “‘ society” of three 
distinct, united, equal, infinite, eternal and harmonious 
Beings, designated by the specific name of God. So 
the whole human race, consisting of innumerable indi- 
viduals, is called by the specific name of man. The 


former have one common nature, and are united in one 
10 


218 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


substratum : the latter are homogeneous in nature, and 
are united in a common humanity. 

It is extremely difficult to keep up this distinction i 
Persons and this union in one Being, with perfect con- 
sistency. At one time, each of the three is a distinct 
and competent moral agent—one “ mind ;”’ then, pres- 
ently, all the three are included “ in the Divine mind.” 
Even Prof. Stuart, who holds the common theory of the 
Trinity in the least exceptionable form,—the same as 
the simple Trinity of the Scriptures, with the exception 
of a few metaphysical terms, to us unintelligible,— 
sometimes speaks, without his usual caution, and from 
a seemingly unconscious necessity, of more “ beings”? 
than one, inthe Godhead. He says (Bib. Sacra, p. 32): 
“ An actual literal space-relation is out of the question, 
as has already been hinted, for the. Logos and God are 
spiritual BEINGS, yea purely spiritual.” So difficult 1s 
it to preserve a consistent use of terms, in setting forth 
the common theory. And it seems not very material 
to the subject itself, whether, with one or another of the 
writers quoted on the preceding pages, we sige of each 
Person taken separately, as one “* spirit,’’ one minds. 
or one “ being;”? or of the three united in one God, as 
‘the Divine spirit,” ‘‘ the Divine mind,” or “ the Di- 
vine being.”? They are virtually three Gods. 

3. In maintaining that these assumptions are to be 
received as the genuine teachings of revelation ; treat- 
ing them as Divine verities, and the non-reception of 
them in this light as dangerous heresy. The most 
effectual argument in the support and defense of this 


4 
| 
: 


— 4 
NE UW tyiniertinreti ie ny ce * 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 219 


assumption has been the argumentum ad invidiam, or 
*“‘mad-dog” argument. To this have been added, that 
of civil and ecclesiastical law, employed in a manner 
accordant with the taste and fashion of the age; that 
of an excited, overpowering public opinion ; and what- 
ever else has promised to be effectual, in the circum- 
stances of the case. : 

But these assumptions can by no means be admitted 
in the general argument ; for they are not derived from 
the Scriptures by fair interpretation, but by dialectic 
subtilty. Fair interpretation, in the light of “ our 
exegetical guide,’’ does not, either necessarily or con- 
sistently, imply that the phrase, “ the Logos was with 
God,” means with him socially—with him as an asgo- 
ciate “¢ Person,” a ‘ Peer,” or a “distinct and com- 
petent moral agent” in the very nature of the Godhead. 
‘Such an artificial distinction built on a grammatical 
circumstance of such minuteness” as the use of the 
preposition in this phrase, “is not at allin the spirit 
of John.’’ If true in this instance,—and it needs more 
evidence than has yet been produced, to establish it,— 
it must be a singular case; it is not Johannean. But 
if God designed to reveal to man the real existence of 
three Persons in the Divine nature itself,—after having 
so distinctly and so often asserted his oneness in the 
Old Testament, in language addressed to the common 
sense of men, and by that sense to be received and un- 
derstood, and after Christ himself personally had 
taught the same truth in the same language,—would it 
_ nothave been more in accordance with God’s usual course 


220 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


of proceeding, to have somewhere revealed so important 
a truth, as this is claimed to be, more plainly ? Is it 
his known method to reveal highly wmportant truths, 
which yet seem wholly inconsistent with those which 
he has clearly taught, so obscurely that his children, 
who really desire to know and do their Father’s will, 
are greatly perplexed and distressed in their humble 
efforts to ascertain what he means? Some persons, 
indeed, looking through a certain scholastic medium, 
find—or think they find—the common theory taught 
almost everywhere. They discover it in the natural 
language of devout adoration, and of intense emotion in 
religion, in poetry, in eloquence, and in music; as may 
be daily seen or heard. Yes, the seraphim taught it, 
when Isaiah heard them THRICE crying, one to another, 
“ Holy ! holy ! holy ! is Jehovah of hosts ; the whole 
earth is full of His glory!’ The four living creatures, 
whom John saw and heard in his Apocalyptic vision, 
each one having six wings full of eyes within and 
around—these rapt spirits taught it, when they 
rested not day or night, saying, ‘‘ Holy / holy! holy ! 
Lord God Almighty, who was and 2s, and 1s to come vine 
Such persons put under contribution to this theory 
almost everything in nature, but most of all, a fruitful 
imagination. 

Still, if any think that this Greek preposition in the 
passage before us, supplies them with a telescope of 
such magnifying power and perfect transparency, that 
they can penetrate into the Divine nature itself, and 
discover there evident distinctions which lay a founda- 


emi NO 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 221 


tion for three Persons in the very nature of the God- 
head ; and 2f they are properly authorized so to use 
it,—they have a perfect right to do so, on their own 
responsibility. Yet it is very doubtful, to say the 
least, whether this sacred writer intended to furnish 
them with such a telescope; clear, it may seem to 
their own imaginations, but dark, very dark, to many 
a humble inquirer after the truth which God has re- 
vealed. In so many ages, and in so many instances all 
along, from very early Christian times down to the 
present, has this been the fact with respect to the 
common THEORY, that we can hardly say of it, as is 
said of “‘ life and immortality,”’ that it is ‘‘ brought to 
light by the gospel.” 

A few other passages demand examination, as they 
are supposed to have an important bearing upon the 
theory in question. One of these is in John 3:13: 
“No one (ovdes) hath ascended up to heaven, but he 
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who 
is in heaven.”? 

Was “‘ the Son of Nee at the time when he uttered 
these words, ‘‘in heaven ?”? Was he not on the earth ? 
Did he ever, literally, ‘‘ come down from heaven,’ as 
he afterward ascended up? What, then, is its mean- 
ing ? 

In remarking on this passage, Bloomfield says: 
“‘ The phrase ascended up to heaven, is used agreeably 
to the language commonly employed of one who an- 
nounced any revelation—that he had ascended to 
heaven and fetched his knowledge from thence.’? He 


piv oys A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


adds: ‘‘ The sense then is, ‘ And no one has ever as- 
cended to heaven, to bring down this information from 
heaven, nor can any one except the Son of man (i. e. 
the Messiah), reveal the counsels of God for the salva- 
tion of man;’ i. e. No one knoweth the counsels of 
God but I, who came down from God’’—I, who am 
commissioned to announce this revelation of his will. 
God graciously manifested himself to man, in the per- 
son of Jesus of Nazareth. His being commissioned 
and sent forth as the Messiah, and endowed with the 
requisite knowledge to be communicated to men, of 
God and the way of salvation—this was his “* coming 
down from heaven.”’ i 

Prof. Mayer remarks respecting this passage: ‘* The 
words were evidently spoken in a tropical sense ; for in 
their literal acceptation they have no consistent mean- 
ing. ....... The figurative idea which is con- 
ceived, is that of a royal council and a council-chamber 
in heaven, where the affairs of the kingdom of God are 
discussed, and purposes are decreed. Some of these 
decrees are sent down to mankind on earth by messen- 
gers of God, inspired men, and thus become things on 
earth ; that is, things revealed and known to men, and 
accessible to them; but other decrees are still reserved 
in heaven, as secrets of state, and are known only to 
the king and to those who are in his confidence and in- 
timacy. Compare Deut. 30: 11,12. Jesus had told 
Nicodemus of earthly things, of things already revealed 
through the prophets, such as the necessity of a new 
birth, a new heart and a new spirit ; and because Nico- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 223 


demus was slow to believe him, he asked, by way of 
rebuke, ‘ How will ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly 
things ?—of things which are yet among the mysteries 
of God? And to assure this Jewish ruler that no 
other person could make those heavenly things known 
to men, he remarked, ‘ No man hath ascended up to 
heaven,’ etc. The sense of these words is, therefore, 
no other than this: No man has entered into the secret 
counsels of God which are reserved in heaven, but he 
that came down, as it were, from heaven, with a com- 
mission from God, to make them known ; even the 
Son of man, who is intimate with God and has access 
to his secret purposes.’’* 

There is no more difficulty respecting the meaning of 
this passage, whether we consider God—the Father, the 
Logos, the Holy Spirit, or all the fullness of the God- 
head—as dwelling in him, and communicating to him 
all the knowledge requisite in the case, and performing 
by or through him all that Divine work which was 
needful to be done; or consider “‘ the second Person 
of the Trinity” (according to the common theory) as 
dwelling in him. There is no more of his “ being in 
heaven,”’ or ‘‘ coming down from heaven,’? in the one 
case than in the other. But there seems to be an im- 
pression on many minds, that there was a literal or 
quasi-literal leaving of heaven, by the second Person 
of the Trinity—that the Son of God im eternity, did 
actually ‘‘leave the bosom of the Father’? when the 


* Bib. Repos., Jan. 1840, p. 155. 


294 ' A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Logos became incarnate, and was, for the time being, 


no more in heaven, and possessed no more Divine glory 
or enjoyment there, as he always had done; but that 
he literally took up his abode on earth for some years, 
—existed and operated, enjoyed and suffered, only here. 
But the Scriptures, understood according to the He- 
brew or Hebrew-Greek idiom, in which they were writ- 
ten, appear to teach no such doctrine as this. It seems 
evidently to be a figment of that scholastic philosophy, 
in which the general subject of the Trinity has been 
enveloped for centuries. 

Similar to the above, is the passage in John 6 : 62: 
‘* What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up 
where he was before ?? ‘The Son of man—the Mes- 
siah. ‘*Before’? when ? Doubtless, before the Lo- 
gos became incarnate. But where was ‘the Son of 
man’’ before the incarnation? As Messiah, he had 
no existence till the occurrence of that ever-memorable 
event. Hz who, in the fullness of time, became mani- 
fest in the flesh, existed im heaven, not as “ the Son of 
man’’—the Messiah, but as very God. To that glori- 
ous, blessed world, the disciples did, afterward, see 
him (the Messiah) ascend up.—Acts 1: 9, 10. 

But the passage in John 17 : 5, has been regarded 
as plainly implying or teaching the idea of “‘ society” — 
of the Divine nature of the Son before the incarnation 
‘¢in connection or community’’ with the Divine nature of 
the Father: ‘‘ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with 
thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee 
before the world was.’? ‘This meaning, however, ap- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 2925 


pears to depend entirely upon the dark medium through 
which the passage has been viewed. It has been as- 
sumed, or regarded as already proved,—and of this 
proof the passage before us has been considered as a 
very material part,—that there is more than one Per- 
son, more than one “ distinct and competent moral 
agent,’? in the very nature of God. This, however, is 
little else than reasoning in a circle. But if we look 
at the passage with the naked eye of common sense and 
in the light of ‘‘ our exegetical guide,”’ instead of view- 
ing it through a medium which multiplies its images— 
producing “‘ three distinct and competent moral agents 
in God,’’—it will present before us for contemplation 
and adoration, one infinite, eternal, immutable, incom- 
prehensible and perfect Divine agent—“‘ one Jehovah,” 
manifesting himself variously and graciously; yet not 
asa ‘“‘ society’? of infinite Divine agents, but as one 
only living and true God ; just as it appears to be, 
to the unsophisticated ‘“‘ common mind.” 

““ Glorify thou me.’? Who utters this petition ? 
It is he who calls himself ‘‘ the Son of man,’ the Mes- 
stah ; he who is the ‘‘ Mediator between God and men, 
the man Christ Jesus.” Surely “our exegetical 
guide’’ does not teach us that the Divine nature which 
dwelt in the Son, prayed to the Divine nature of the 
Father. It was the Son himself—‘‘ the man” who 
acted as ‘ mediator.”? He prayed to God his Father, 
that he would glorify him—the Son—the Messiah. 
But what was it to glorify the Messiah ? It was, to 


make it manifest to all that he was the Messiah—to 
ae (0: 


226 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


honor him as such, by sanctioning his doings, raising 
him to his throne (but not for the sake of his own per- 
sonal agegrandizement), and rendering effectual the 
work which he performed as the ambassador of God to 
man—to give efficacy to the gospel when preached to 
men, and make it the means of their salvation. So far 
as these things are done, just so far. the Messiah is 
honored— glorified.”” This he desired, not for his 
own private gratification, but to honor God, and for the 
great cause in which he was engaged. It is evident 
he included all this in his prayer, because he extended 
his petition to all who were or should become his fol- 
lowers. He prayed that God would, in the way already 
specified, glorify the Son (the Messiah), that the Mes- 
siah might thereby glorify God his Father. This 
would be the case in respect to all who should obtain 
** eternal life’’-—who should ‘‘ know,’’ i. e. acknowl- 
edge, love and obey the only true God, and Jesus who 
was anointed and sent forth among men as the Mes- 
siah. He thus prayed for himself as the Messsah, and 
for the success of his work in all future time. By this 
success, God the Father, who had devised the plan and 
sent his Son to perform a certain work, and his Son, 
the Messiah himself, would be ‘‘ glorified.” His mind 
was evidently intent upon the success of his peculiar 
work down to the end of time. This was the burden 
of his prayer. It was the object of his coming into the 
world, and that for which he was about to die. 

* Glorify thou me with thine own self.”? God is 
“slorified”? by means of this work of saving men; 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 227 


which originated with him, and is carried on and will 
be carried out by his gracious agency. So the Mes- 
siah himself, who was greatly honored in being ap- 
pointed to that office, would be “ glorified?”—honored— _ 
_ extolled, in connection with the supreme honor which 
would redound to God his Father, as the originator 
and author of it all. His language neither here nor 
elsewhere seems to justify us in the supposition that, in 
the midst of his prayer for his disciples and followers 
and fer the success of the cause in which he was just 
going to die, he turned off his attention from the subject 
which everywhere else filled his heart, to pray for the 
personal enjoyment of that Divine glory which his 
Divine nature actually possessed in connection with the 
Father, “‘ before the world was,” but of which his God- 
head was now deprived in his humiliation. Did the 
immaculate Son of God while here on earth—did our 
great High Priest who is now passed into the heavens,— 
ever before manifest such a regard to himself and his 
own personal gratification? Who that duly considers 
his self-denying principles, practice, life, can believe 
him now—with a full knowledge of the sufferings which 
were just before him, and which of necessity bore upon 
his mind, and with a heart overflowing with love to his 
Father, his followers and his kingdom—now for the 
first time, filled with longing for that Divine glory 
which he (referring to his Godhead, the Logos) had in 
heaven before the incarnation? or, that he—the Mes- 
siah who prayed—was, in these circumstances, pouring 
out such intense longings to witness that Divine, eter- 


228 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


nal, uncreated glory which he had never beheld? No: 
such’a theoretic, contracted view of his capacious love 
must not be needlessly attributed to Jesus, the great 
Messiah. He is continuing his last prayer for the 
same benevolent, noble object—-the glory of the Mes- 
siah’s peculiar work in the success of the gospel down 
to the end of time. 

There are two ways in which this passage may be 
interpreted,—to say nothing of minor shades of mean- 
ing,—both of which have just been alluded to, and one 
of which is doubtless the true one. 

1. One interpretation is given of the passage in ac- 
cordance with a scholastic theory, which is, that there 
are three Persons—three eternal distinctions, or three 
infinite, self-existent minds—in the nature of God. 
According to this theory, the passage before us is un- 
derstood to mean, that the second Person of the Trinity— 
either an eternal distinction, or an infinite, self-existent 
mind—existed in intimate connection or in blessed go- 

ciety with the first Person, and possessed, in common 
with him, Divine and eternal glory ; of which glory, dur- 
ing the period of the incarnation, the second Person was 
deprived : Christ, therefore, in his last prayer with his 
disciples, offered up an earnest petition to the first 
Person, his Father, that this Divine glory might be 
restored to the second Person—the Logos, or Son of 
God in eternity,—as it was at the beginning, “‘ before 
the world was.’? Where all this is taught, except in 
the interpretation of certain difficult passages (rendered 
difficult by scholasticism) to fit this theory, does not 


ae 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 229 


appear. “ Trinitarians have generally held and freely 
conceded, that this doctrine of Persons in the Godhead 
as not directly taught in the Scriptures.” This is 
true ; and we must wait for another revelation, before 
we can receive it as revealed truth—truth “ directly 
taught ;”” for the wildest theories have been claimed, 
as taught by inference. We therefore, after what has 
been said of this theory on the preceding pages, dismiss 
its kindred interpretation of the passage before us, as 
not in accordance with what is revealed ; but only 
with a theory. 

2. The other interpretation accords with Scripture 
facts, or-with truths which are explicitly revealed. 
For, it is revealed, that God did honor or * glorify”? 
his Son Jesus, the Messiah, in anointing him to that 
office for the,work of mediation between God and men ; 
in raising him from the dead and exalting him to 
heaven ; and in giving success to his gospel in the 
sanctification and salvation of men. It is revealed, 
that he will continue thus to honor or “ glorify’? him 
as the Messiah, till all the redeemed from among men, 
from first to last, are gathered into heaven 3—with 
plain intimations, that his glory as Messiah will not 
then disappear. It is also revealed, that whatever 
God actually does, he eternally purposed to do—‘ be- 
fore the world was.” We are not taught in the Scrip- 
tures, that God does anything without plan—without 
purpose, or that he forms new plans or purposes all 
along, as though he did not “ see the end from the be- 
ginning.” Noy, if God has thus glorified the Messiah, 


230 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


and if he will continue to glorify him so long as the 
Messiah shall be known in heaven as the Savior of 
his redeemed ones; then, he eternally purposed to do 
so—‘‘ before the world was.’’? Not only will God 
glorify his Son, the Messiah, in a manner suited to 
his office and his work for the salvation of men; but 
he will also, by the same means of his own devising. 
and by his gracious agency in carrying out his plan, 
glorify himself preéminently, in the full accomplish- 
ment of his object. In cannection with thus glorifying 
himself, God also glorifies his Son Jesus. ‘This view, 
then, is in strict accordance with truths which are 
clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures ; and this ap- 
pears to be the natural and Scriptural interpretation 
of the passage, if we follow ‘‘ our exegetical guide.” 
But it has been supposed that the latter part of the 
passage, “ with the glory which “TI had with thee be- 
fore the world was,” is “ fatal’’ to the view which has 
now been expressed. Yet, in the light of the general 
subject, it is far otherwise. With thee, maga ool. 
This has been understood here, to denote ‘‘ society,”’ 
or what is equivalent to it. But this Greek preposi- 
~ tion governing the dative, is susceptible of a different 
meaning, as in Rom. 11: 25, and 12:16: “wise in 
your own conceit,” rag’ &avtis—within yourselves— 
in your own estimation. This preposition also means 
before, in the sight of ; as in Rom. 2: 11: “* There 
is no respect of persons with God’’—before God—in 
the sight of God. The sense of wagé in either place 
is not very different from its meaning, in the passage 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 231 


before us. But we do not depend on the meaning of 
the preposition alone, here or elsewhere. Lexicogra- 
phers often tell us that a word ig used in a particular 
sense, only in a few places, or in one place. How do 
they know that ? Is it not from a careful eramina- 
tion of those places, or of that place, where it is found, 
and from what they know of the general or particular 
subject ? | 

But if such is the proper way to ascertain the par- 
ticular meaning of words or phrases in ordinary cases, 
why not in this case? May we not proceed in this 
manner to ascertain the meaning of a passage in the 
New Testament, on a peculiar subject, without first 
ascertaining whether the words are used in classic and 
heathen authors, as they appear to be used here? 
What, in the mean time, has become of “our exegeti- 
cal guide?” If we find words used in classic authors, 
as they evidently appear to be used in the Scriptures, 
it does, indeed, strengthen the conviction, that we have 
not misjudged in the matter ; but are we not to follow 
‘our guide,”? unless that follows strictly in the track 
of those authors, whose meaning must. be ascertained 
in the same way ? This would not be following iT at 
all. In such case, what would become of the Christian 
sense of such words as those which are translated vir- 
tue, humility, faith, grace, righteousness, and the 
like—words which have a very different meaning in 
heathen and in Christian authors? It is plain, then, 
that we should proceed in our investigations, in the 
light of the general subject (in connection with the 


2382 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


context) to ascertain what particular words, or phrases, 
or sentences mean; without being “ fatally’? pre- 
vented from doing so, by the light of classic authority 
or the dimness of scholastic philosophy. 

On this principle, we feel justified in giving, nay, 
required to give, to the passage before us, the meaning 
which has been expressed, and which is briefly this: 
“That the Son of God prayed that God his Father, in 
connection with glorifying himself supremely in the 
work of man’s salvation, would also glorify him as the 
anointed Messiah, even with that glory which he eter- 
nally purposed in himself that his Son should receive ; 
as made known in his promise repeatedly recorded in 
the Scriptures.”—Ps. 2 : 6-12; Isa. 53 : 10-12; 
et. al. 

In like manner it is declared, 1 Pet. 1 : 20, that 
Christ, who shed his ‘‘ precious blood’? for the redemp- 
tion of his people, “‘ verily was foreordained before the 
foundation of the world, but was manifest in these 
last times for you.’? God eternally purposed to send 
his Son the Messiah to perform the work in question, 
to accomplish it through him, and to honor him ac- 
cordingly, in so doing. The language here and in the 
passage under consideration, is similar to that which is 
employed to set forth what God had determined to do 
for those whom he would save through Christ’s media- 
tion: ‘* According as he hath chosen us in him [by 
means of him—through his mediation] before the foun- 
dation of the world, that we should be holy, and with- 
out blame before him in love.”’—Eph.1:4. ‘* Ac- 


< [ 
iad 
oki hae 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 233 


cording to his own purpose and grace, which was given 
us in Christ Jesus [through his mediation], before the 
world began ; but is now made manifest by the ap- 
pearing of our Savior Jesus Christ.?’—2 Tim. 1: 9, 10: 
In the general import of his prayer, there is a plain 
distinction indicated between the Supreme glory of the 
Father and that which he supplicates for himself as 
Messiah. He who prays, does not ask for himself the 
glory which belongs to God_ his Father, and which 
would redound to him; but for-that which was pro- 
mised to him as the Messiah. He prays for that 
which is proper for each, and which belongs to each. 
Is this “‘ blasphemy ?”’ Is it not done with the utmost 
propriety? Is it not in perfect keeping with the whole 
subject, and just as it should be 2 Those, likewise, who 
are ** predestinated, called, and justified”’ through the 
mediation of Christ, and who “ suffer with him,” will 
“be also glorified with him.””—(Rom. 8 : 30, 17.) 
This is declared and promised. Ig it not, then, in the 
fullest sense proper, and a duty, for them to pray that 
they may realize this promise? If so, why was it not 
in the highest degree proper for the Messiah to pray, 
that the promise made to him in reference to his ap- 
propriate work may likewise be fulfilled? Then will 
it, in the issue, be true preeminently, “that God in all 
things”? will “be glorified through Jesus Christ,—to 
whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. 
Amen !”°—1 Pet. 4: 11. 7 
This view of the passage before us seems to be in 
perfect keeping with the plain import of the Messiah’s 


934 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


last prayer for the success of his mediation. Accord- 
ingly, he begins: ‘ Father, the hour is come—the 
hour appointed for me to die; glorify thy Son (the 
Messiah), by carrying on and completing the work thus 
begun, that thy Son also may thereby glorify thee. I 
have glorified thee since I have been on the earth, en- 
gaged in my mission: I have finished the work which 
thou gavest me to do here, as the Messiah. And now, 
O Father, complete this work ; and in connection with 
thus glorifying thyself, glorify thy Son also, as thou 
didst eternally purpose, and hast promised to do. As 
thou didst commit this work to my hands, so have I 
committed the publication of thy truth to my disciples. 
Give them complete success; sanctify them through 
thy truth, and all those also who shall believe on me 
through their word, to the end of time.” 

The Messiah proceeds to pray, that all who were 
then, or who should afterward become, his followers, 
“may be one ;?’—how one? What union is this? 
** As thou, Father, art in me?—the Messiah. He 
had often said, ‘‘ the Father zs in me ;”? “ the Father 
that dwelleth in me,” i. e. abideth permanently. There 
was an abiding union, an indwelling of the Father in 
the Messiah; God acting in, by, through him as the 
Messiah ; so that it was proper for him to Say, in 
reference to himself as the ‘‘ the Son of man,’? I know 
not ‘* that day and hour ;”’ and in reference to God his 
Father that dwelt in him, “before Abraham was, I 
am.”’ This indwelling formed a perfect union of pur- 
pose, of desire, of attachment, of object, and of effort 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 235 


to accomplish it. He prayed that ‘‘ they’? might “ be 
one in us,’’ in these respects. He says nothing rela- 
tive to a union of his Divine nature, considered as ‘‘ a 
distinct and competent moral agent,’? with the Divine 
nature of the Father, considered as another “‘ distinct 
and competent moral agent.”? He has left this parti- 
cular out of sight—unrevealed ; just where he evidently 
intended it should be left; and no human philosophy 
can make any advance toward such a revelation. 

“The glory which thou hast conferred on me,” in 
appointing me to take a part with thee in the blessed 
work of saving men, and which thou hast promised me 
hereafter ; the same glory ‘‘ I have given them,”’ by 
appointing them to take a part in the same work, and 
promising them a share in that happiness and honor 
which thou wilt confer on all who codperate with us for 
this end. ‘* Father, I earnestly desire that they also 
whom thou hast given me, may be gathered together in 
heaven, and may witness and participate in that hap- 
piness and honor which thou hast purposed and promised 
to bestow upon thy Son.”’ 

John 17 : 24: “For thou lovedst me before the 
foundation of the world.”? The love here specified, 
doubtless was,—not the love which the Father, as one 
Person in the Godhead, bore to the Logos as another 
Person in the Godhead, but—that eternal love which 
the Father bore to his beloved Son, ‘‘ the man Christ 
Jesus.”’? Just as God loved his elect people before the 
foundation of the world. 1 John 4:19; 2 Thes. 2: 
13 3. Eph.-1 2 4. 


236 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


But the passage in Phil. 2 : 5-8, has been supposed 


_ to teach or to imply the truth of the common theory of 


the Trinity. We give it in the language of Prof. 
Stuart’s translation, (Miscell. p. 112), which the 
reader can compare with the common version, and 
perhaps with the original Greek: ‘ Let the same mind 
be in you which was in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the 
condition of God, did not regard his equality with God 
as an object of solicitous desire, but taking the condi- 
tion of a servant, being made after the similitude of 
men, and being found in fashion as a man, he*humbled 
himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death 
of the cross.”? Evidently this translation gives, with 
much greater exactness than that in our common ver- 
sion, the sense of the original text. 

Though Christ was really God, yet he did not regard 
that claim “‘ as an object of solicitous desire,”’—he did 
not eagerly seize the opportunity to make this high but 
just claim, before men, while here among them. This 
sense of the text accords with the matter of fact. He 
did not make a show of doing so, but he often forebore 
to make that claim which he might have made without 
arrogance. What, then, did he do? In general, he 
treated the subject very much as though he had no 
such rightful claim at all—calling himself “‘ the Son of 
man,’? appearing as a man, a servant obedient to the 
will of Him that sent him on his errand of mercy, and 
humbling himself still more in the completion of his 
work, than he had done while living among men without 
a place to lay his head,—he became obedient even unto 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 237 


death—the very death of the cross. It was, therefore, 
very much to the purpose that the apostle exhorted 
Christians to imitate the example which Christ had set. 
them. 

Jesus himself was not in the habit of making a direct 
claim to Supreme Divinity, and of saying that he was 
the true God. His great aim seems to have been to 
establish his claim to the Messiahship—that he was 
the Son of God and Savior of the world. He did the 
other more indirectly, e. g. by saying, “the Father 
is 1 
dwelleth in me, He doeth the work.”’ 

But John 5: 17,18: ‘‘ My Father worketh hitherto, 
and I work,”? has been claimed as a direct admission 
on his part of his equality with God, in the highest 
sense of the terms; “‘ making himself equal with God.” 
The context, however, on a careful examination, ap- 
pears to teach us a different doctrine. The Rev. Dr. 
Mayer seems to have presented a very just view of this 
passage. He says (Bib. Repos. Jan., 1840, pp. 144-6): 

“ Jesus having healed the impotent man at the pool 
of Bethesda on the Sabbath day, the Jews charged him 
with a criminal violation of the sanctity of the day, and 
sought for that reason to put him to death. The de- 
sign of Jesus was to prove his innocence of the crime 
of violating any law of God; and for this purpose he 
says to them: ‘ My Father worketh hitherto, and I 
work.’ Upon this ‘the Jews sought the more to kill 
him, because,’ as the apostle tells us, ‘ he had not only 
broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his 


238 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Father, making himself equal with God.? Did John 
believe that Jesus had broken the Sabbath? Certainly 
not. Neither, therefore, did he believe that Jesus 
made himself equal with God, in the sense in which the 
Jews understood him, or affected to understand him. 
In his judgment the allegation that Jesus had made 
himself equal with God, in their sense, by saying that 
God was his Father, was about as true as the charge 
that he had broken the Sabbath by healing the impo- 
tent man. ‘The answer of Jesus shows what sort of 
equality he meant: it was an equality guoad hoc : an 
equality consisting in this, that both the Father and he 
wrought on the Sabbath day. ...... Tae ae 
So far from claiming that equality with God which the 
interpretation we are opposing ascribes to him, he en- 
tirely disclaims it.”’ 

In that remarkably tender and affectionate interview 
which Christ had with his disciples just before he offered 
up his last prayer, he remarked: ‘‘ I have yet many 
things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now.”’ 
He then adds : 

John 16: 18: “* Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of 
truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he 
shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall 
hear, that shall he speak.’’ 

In order to understand this passage correctly, it is 
necessary to enter, as far as possible, into all the cir- 
cumstances of the case, as they then existed. 

The disciples had been with Jesus for several years, 
enjoying his affectionate counsels and faithful instruc- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 239. 


tions ; and they loved and revered him as their Lord 
and Master, and trusted in him as the Messiah. But 
they had, in some respects, very erroneous views of his | 
kingdom. They thought it was to be a temporal king- 
dom, “‘ restored to Israel ;”” he the king, and they his 
ministers of state. He had instructed them in the 
knowledge of his spiritual kingdom, as they were “ able 
to bear it.” Now he told them that he—who had 
hitherto been their teacher, guide, comforter—should 
soon leave them, and go his way to him that sent him 
on his mission to men; but that he would pray the 
Father, and He would give them another paraclete— 
‘chhov mugdxlntov, another comforter, who would supply 
his place, and give them all needful instruction and aid 
in their work. At this announcement that their Mas- 
ter was soon to leave them, they were filled with sad- 
ness. Jesus they knew—he had instructed them—he 
had endowed them with special gifts when needed— 
they had leaned upon him; but as to this “ other para- 
clete’’-—this new aid which was promised them— 
whether the views of their master relative to his king- 
dom and to them, as they had understood the subject, 
would thereby be carried out, was to them a matter of 
some solicitude. He told them not to be troubled ;_ 
but as they believed in God, so to believe in him as 
their Messiah ; that he was going to prepare mansions 
for them in his Father’s house, and then he would 
return and take them home to dwell with him. But 
they seemed not fully to understand him. ~ He told 
them it was expedient for them—better for them, 


~ 


240 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


for they would more fully understand his doctrine 
and their duty—that he should go away; otherwise, 
the Paraclete (the promised endowment now personi- 
fied and used with the article as a proper name), 
the Comforter would not come to them; but after he 
had departed, he would send him. In the mean time 
(while he should be absent from them), this Comforter 
would abide with them continually, bring to their re- 
membrance whatsoever he had said to them, aid them 
in their work, and instruct them in matters of the 
deepest interest ; but which now they were not able to 
bear. In this state of mind, understanding the subject 
but imperfectly, and full of doubt and solicitude,—_ 
though they had very great confidence in their Mas- 
ter,—it was natural for them to feel that they could 
not be sure what course this Paraclete would pursue; 
nor, whether he might not manage differently from 
what their Master would do, if he were present. But, 
as Jesus had often told them before, that he did not 
himself come to do his own will, but the will of him that 
sent him,—that he had no separate interest of his own 
to seek, but did only what he had received commission 
from his Father to do,—and was cooperating with him 
in carrying out the purposes of his grace in the salva- 
tion of men; so now, he assured them that. this Para- 
clete, “‘ the Spirit of truth,’? who was to be their 
teacher and guide, would have no separate interest of 
“his own to pursue, but would adhere strictly to the 
course which had been marked out for him (the Mes- 
siah) by his Father. In THis respect, it would be as 


— 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 241 


though he was only a subordinate agent, obedient to 
the will of his superior, as the Messiah had been, and 
teaching only what he should “hear,” or receive from 
God; i. e. he would pursue the same course which 
Jesus had pursued. In thus instructing them and ren- 
dering their efforts to extend his kingdom successful, 
Christ says: “ He shall glorify me,” the Messiah (as 
already explained) ; “for he shall receive of mine ;— 

dauBdver, take the doctrine, or, truth which appertains 
to my kingdom, ‘‘and shall show it unto you’’—com- 
municate it to you, as shall be needful. “ All things 
that the Father hath are mine ;’—my doctrine and 
that of the Father, appertaining to the mediatorial dis- 
pensation, are one and the same thing ;—“therefore 
es I, that he shall take of mine,”—my doctrine,— 

“and shall show it unto you.”’ 

The Jews, and other Eastern nations, were very 
much in the habit of personifying abstract truth and 
inexplicable fact, and so of representing it as a real 
person. Something like this appears to be done here, 
in respect to that Divine illumination, aid, and com- 
fort, which God, in his gracious dispensations, would 
impart to the apostles, as they went forth to their 
work. To interpret these expressions literally,— he 
shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, 
that shall he speak,”—thus making the Spirit a dis- 
tinct and subordinate agent, would be acting on the 
very principle which has led to the doctrines of eter- 
nal generation, eternal procession, and transubstan- 


tiation. 
i 


242, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


The passage in 1 John 5: 7, 8, has been regarded 
by many persons, as clear and decisive evidence of the 
truth of the common theory of the Trinity: ‘ For 
there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, 
the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are 
one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], 
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these 
three agree in one.”’ But that part of this passage 
which we have included in brackets is now generally 
regarded by critics, who have thoroughly investigated 
the subject, as spurious. Prof. Stuart says of it (as 
before quoted), that “if not proved to be spurious, it 
is at least thrown into a state so doubtful that no con- 
siderate inquirer would at present think of appealing to 
it as authority.” Neander says, “it is undoubtedly 
spurious.” Prof. Knapp expresses the same opinion. 

Philip Limborch, a celebrated Professor of Divinity 
in Holland, of the Armenian persuasion, born at Am- 
sterdam in 1643, wrote a book entitled, Theologia 
Christiana ; of which there were four editions within 
thirty years from its first appearance, in 1686. In 
the first edition, now before us (4to., Amst., p. 102), 
he says he declines using the passage in question as a 
proof-text, ‘“ because it is wanting in many ancient © 
Greek and Latin manuscripts, as also in the Syriac, 
Arabic and Ethiopic versions, by many of the fathers 
it was not acknowledged [as genuine], and many dis- 
tinguished men contend that it is superfluous (abun- 
dare) in the text, and intruded by some human hand. 

Mr. Barnes, in his commentary on the passage, gives 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 243 


the result of an investigation of the subject; and as it 
is a very good summary statement of the case, we shall : 
introduce most of it to-the attention of the reader. 
After omitting the contested part of it, which we have 
included in brackets, the passage will read thus: ‘ For 
there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the 
water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” 
Mr. B. says: “The reasons which seem to me to 
prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, 
and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired 
writings, are briefly the following : 

“1. It is wanting in all the earlier Greek manu- 
scripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written 
before the sixteenth century. Indeed, it is found in 
only two Greek manuscripts of any age; one the Co- 
dex Montfortianus, or Brittanicus, written in the begin- 
ning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex 
Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text taken 
partly from the the third edition of Stephen’s New 
Testament, and partly from the Complutesian Poly- 
glott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of 
the New Testament should be wanting in ald the early 
Greek manuscripts. 

“2. It is wanting in the earliest versions, and, in- 
deed, in a large part of the versions of the New Tes- 
tament which have been made in all former times. It 
is wanting in both the Syriac versions—one of which 
was made probably in the first century ; in the Coptic, 
Armenian, Sclayonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic. 

3. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in 


244. A BIBLICAL. TRINITY: 


their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity—a 
passage which would be so much in point, and which 
could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine ; 
and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until 
the time of Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century. 
If the passage were believed to be genuine; nay, if it © 
were known at all to be in existence, and to have any 
probability in its favor, it is incredible that in all the 
controversies which occurred in regard to the Divine 
nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of 
the Trinity, this passage should never have been refer- 
red to. But it never was; for it must be plain to any 
one who examines the subject with an unbiased mind, 
that the passages which are relied on to prove that it 
was quoted ~by Athanasius, Cyprian, &c. (Wetstein, 
II., 725), are not taken from this place, and are not 
such as they would have made if they had been ac- 
quainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. 
“4. The argument against the passage from the 
external proof, is confirmed by internal evidence, which 
makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine. 
‘“((1.) The connection does not demand it. It does 
not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, 
but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is 
speaking of certain things which bear ‘ witness’ to the 
fact that Jesus is the Messiah ; certain things which 
were well known to those to whom he was writing—the 
Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it 
contribute to strengthen the force of this, to say that 
in heaven there are ‘three that bear witness’—three 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 245 


not before referred to, and having no connection with 
the matter under consideration ? 

““(2.) The language is not such as John would use. 
He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term Logos, or 
Word (6 A6yos, John 1: 1, 14; 1 John 1: 1), but it is 
never in this form, ‘The Father, and the Word ;’ 
that is, the terms ‘ Father’ and ‘ Word? are never used 
by him, or by any other sacred writers, as correlative.* — 
DOOD. 13 309s D208 244 las Dn Bes 
and the Gospel of John, passim. Besides; the cor- 
relative of the term Logos, or Word, with John, is 
not Father, but God. See John 1:1; Comp. Rev. 
19°: 33, 

“‘(3.) Without this passage the sense of the argument 
is clear and appropriate. Theréare three, says John, 
which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. ‘These 
are referred to in verse 6, and in immediate connection 
with this, in the argument (v. 8), it is affirmed that 
their testimony goes to one point and is harmonious. 
To say that there are other witnesses elsewhere ; to say 
that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the 
nature of the testimony of these three—the water, and 
the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the 


* Good evidence this, by the way, of the wnsowndness of that argu- 
ment or statement which substitutes Logos for Son, in the passages 
which speak of God as creating all things “by his Son,” or “by 
Christ ;”” as mentioned in the preceding chapters of this work. He 
‘created all things “by (on account of) his Son” the Messiah, but not 
by the Logos. The Father and the Logos “are never so used by him 
(John) , or by any other sacred writers,” ; 


246 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its 
genuineness as the external proof. 

“5. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a 
place in the New Testament. It was at first written, 
perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as 
expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in 
heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention 
to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note 
ina book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of 
the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a 
genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it be- 
came too important a passage in the argument for the 
Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear 
critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and 
inserted in one Greek manuscript of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, while it was wanting in all the earlier manu- 
scripts. 

‘6. The passage is now omitted in the best edi. 
tions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious 
by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On 
the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be 
clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the 
inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in 
proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.??* 

The passage in Isa. 58 : 10-12, has been very ex- 
tensively understood to favor the common theory of the 


* See also Mill. N. Test., pp. 379-386 ; Wetstein, II. 721-727, 
Father Simon, Crit. Hist. N. Test,; Micheelis, Introd. N. Test., IV. 412, 
seq., et al. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Q47 


Trinity, inasmuch as it is supposed, in connection with 
Ps. 40: 7,8, and John 14: 26; 15 : 26; 16: 7, to 
give an account of a transaction in eternity, technically 
called *‘the Covenant of Redemption.” The first 
named passage is here given in the language of Lowth’s 
translation, which is regarded as expressing the sense 
of the original with greater accuracy than that of the 
common version. 

“Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush him with afflic- 
tion. If his soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice, 
he shall see a seed which shall prolong their days, and 
the gracious purpose of Jehovah shall prosper in his 
hands. Of the travail of his soul he shall see [the 
fruit], and be satisfied ; by the knowledge of him shall 
my servant justify many; for the punishment of their 
iniquities shall he bear. Therefore will I distribute to 
him the many for his portion; and the mighty people 
shall he share for his spoil; because he poured his soul 
out unto death, and was numbered with the transgres- 
sors ; and he bare the sin of many, and made interces- 
sion for the transgressors.” 

The purport of this passage has been understood to 
be that the first Person in the Trinity, the Father, 
proposed to the second Person, the Son in eternity, to 
undertake the future redemption of man, by assuming 
human nature and dying on the cross; with the pro- 
mise of a rich reward for so doing. The acceptance of 
this proposal by the eternal Son, or the Logos, has 
been supposed to be recorded in Ps. 40: 7, 8, (quoted 
in Heb. 10:-7), ‘‘ Then said I, Lo, I come: in the 


248 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do 

thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.”? 

To the transaction thus far described, as having taken - 
place in eternity, some add that the first and second 

Persons of the Trinity proposed to the third Person, 

the Holy Spirit, to undertake the work of sanctifying 

men; and he accepted the proposal, and made the en- 

gagement accordingly. This is supposed to be intimat- 

ed in the passages referred to above, in the Gospel of 
John. Thus the Father sent the Son, and these two 

Persons united in sending the Holy Spirit, who “ pro- 

ceeded” from them both. This transaction, supposed 

to have taken place in eternity, between the several 

Persons of the Trinity, is what is denominated the 

Covenant of Redemption. 

But it seems almost incredible that such a theory 
should ever have been made out from such premises ; 
and especially that it should have been claimed as ac- 
tually taught in such passages as those just cited. If 
the imagination is to be allowed such a range as this in 
making out the meaning of Scripture, there is hardly 
any visionary absurdity which cannot claim—and with 
a very good grace—to have the support of revelation; 
nay, to be actually taught there. Such visionary ab- 
surdity only follows in the track marked out for it by 
the principles of interpretation adopted in forming the 
theortes of a scholastic trinity, the covenant of re- 
demption, eternal generation, eternal procession, and 
transubstantiation. 

The passage in Isaiah has always been understood, 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 249 


both by Jewish and Christian expositors, to relate to the 
Messiah. It is evidently a prophetic account of his 
humiliation, sufferings and death, and of their happy 
and glorious results. It begins with the declaration 
that “it pleased Jehovah’’ to afflict him, just as it has 
“pleased”? him to afllict his people, in one way or an- 
other, in all ages of the world. It declares that if or 
when he “ shall make a propitiatory sacrifice”? of him- 
self, he shall witness, in its happy results, the eternal 
salvation of multitudes of the human race; that ‘the 
gracious purpose of Jehovah,’’ with respect to the sal- 
vation of men, would “ prosper’? through his mediation ; 
that he would “ be satisfied,”? in beholding the abun- 
dant fruit of his sufferings; and that by a practical 
“‘knowledge’’ of the Messiah, multitudes would be 
“¢ justified,”’ or treated as righteous ; for, by his media- 
tion, he would remove their exposure to the punishment 
due to their sins. The Messiah having thus, in pro- 
phetic vision, completed the spiritual conquest of the 
world, a rich reward is promised him, in language ap- 
propriate to him as a conquering prince, and taken 
from the ancient custom of distributing the spoils of © 
victory after the battle is over; declaring that this is 
done ** because”? he submitted to great degradation and 
suffering,—to the very death of the cross,—allowing 
himself to be “numbered with the transgressors,” or 
regarded and treated as were those who suffered justly 
aS malefactors. 
This appears to be the plain, general import of the 
passage before us. If so, what is there in it which 


250 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


has even the remotest appearance of a proposal to the 
Son wm eternity to undertake the work of man’s re- 
demption? Nothing of this appears there. But it 
discloses ‘‘ the gracious purpose of Jehovah,’’ formed 
in eternity, relative to the salvation of men, the coming 
of the Messiah for the accomplishment of the object, 
and its glorious results. 3 

The passage in the 40th Psalm, quoted in the 10th 
of Hebrews, evidently has no reference to the Divine 
nature of the Messiah, the Logos, uttering this lan- 
guage before the incarnation, and addressing God as 
‘““my God.”? Neither the plain import of the passage 
itself, nor the common sense of men, gives any counte- 
nance to such an interpretation. The passage is obvi- 
ously to be understood as a prophetic anticipation of 
what the Messiah would virtually say while he was 
engaged in his mission among men, and as the real 
import of what he did, in his obedience unto death, 
even the death of the cross: ‘‘ Father, not my will, 
but thine be done.”? Here and everywhere his lan- 
guage virtually is, “* Lo ! I come, O God, to do thy 
will.”’? ‘* In the volume of the book it is written con- 
cerning me”’—‘the rites of the ceremonial law, re- 
corded in the ancient Scriptures, set forth my work and 
sufferings as the Messiah.’? This appears to be the 
natural and proper import of the passage now under 
consideration. 

The other passages referred to in the Gospel of 
John, relative to the part which—it has been supposed 
—the Holy Spirit covenanted to perform in the work 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 251. 


of redemption, have already been examined. The 
purport of them is, that from the Father’s sending his ~ 
Son to perform the work of mediation, and the Mes- 
siah’s actual performance of the work assigned him— 
that from these as a preparation (actual or prospec- 
tive), the Holy Spirit “‘ proceedeth”’ in the all-impor- 
tant work of sanctifying and saving men. 

That such a transaction between the several Per- 
sons of the Trinity, possessing one set of Divine attri- 
butes iz common, and these ‘‘ numerically the same,?’ 
should have been actually performed, is a “ notion?’ 
too palpably absurd to be entertained for a moment. 
But the form in which this view is supposed to be held, 
where it is held at all, is, that it was a covenant trans- 
action between three distinct and competent Divine 
agents, each with his own proper Divine attributes. 
This, however, in the view of that common sense of 
men to which the Scriptures are addressed, is nothing 
less and nothing else than pure tritheism; notwith- 
standing the disclaimer of intentionally so representing 
or holding it; and in the absence of all explicit revela- 
tion to that effect, it cannot properly be received as 
the truth, in opposition to one great, leading, all-per- 
vading truth of the Scriptures. 

' These are all the passages which it is considered 
important to examine, in this connection, on account of 
their special bearing upon the general subject. It is 
80 regarded, because there are but two great princi- 
ples of interpretation, in accordance with one or the 
other of which such passages will be understood by 


252 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


those who hold to the Supreme Divinity of the Son and 
Spirit. The former of these principles is contained 
in the common theory of the Trinity. Seen through 
this scholastic medium, these passages have mainly 
one complexion—one import—“ tripersonality in the 
nature of God.”? The latter of these principles is 
contained in the great, leading truth of revelation, that 
there is but “one Jehovah??—“ one God,”’ as the sub- 
ject 1s viewed by the unperverted common sense of 
men. ‘T’hose who deny the real “ Divinity of Christ,”” 
and say,—‘‘ It may mean that he was Jehovah, the 
only living and true God ; in that case, the proper ex- 
pression would be, that we do not believe in the Deity — 
of Christ ;”*—such persons may reject both of these 
principles. But the passage just quoted, may have 
been spoken in reference to the common theory of the 
Trinity, and not at all in reference to the latter prin- 
ciple, as here applied to the interpretation of these 
passages. This principle is not a theory ; any more 
than the declaration, that ‘‘ in the beginning God cre- 
ated the heaven and the earth,” is a theory. A fact, 
or a revealed truth, is not a theory. On this latter 
principle,—by those who receive it,—the whole class of 
passages in question will naturally be understood in 
substantial accordance with that view of them which 
has here been presented. 


* Rev. G. W. Burnap’s Discourses on Popular Objections to Uni- 
tarian Christianity ; p. 31. 


CHAPTER IV. 
MISCELLANEOUS. 


In the preceding chapters, we have considered the 
- subject of the Godhead as revealed to man—the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. We have examined the 
common theory of the Trinity in its Monotheistic and 
Tritheistic forms, and the main arguments by which 
these have commonly been defended ; and have spoken 
of the sufficiency of the word of God itself, without the 
aid of scholastic philosophy, to sustain the truth which 
he has been pleased to reveal to man. We have also 
examined some additional passages of Scripture, which 
have been claimed as teaching or implying the truth of 
the common theory. A few miscellaneous matters re- 
main to be considered, before bringing this discussion 
to a close. 

Notwithstanding this theory has been so long and so 
extensively held among the professed disciples of Christ, 
‘there have been many, in various ages, from its first 
adoption down to the present time, who did not receive 
it as Divine truth ; while yet, so far as appears, many 


254 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


of these have manifested as much real attachment to 
the word of God as their opponents. For a period of 
years, as we have before had occasion to observe, one 
party prevailed for some time, and then the other. 
Nor does it appear that those who held to this theory 
acted more in accordance with the principles or pos- 
sessed more of the spirit of the gospel, than many who 
rejected it. Intolerance was, indeed, the spirit of the 
age; but not therefore justifiable. The reception of 
their scholastic views of Divine truth was thought to 
be necessary, in order to salvation. Those views—the 
costume in which they presented revealed truth—they, 
without doubt, honestly regarded as a part of that 
which was actually revealed; but they did not concede 
to others that right of Hage judgment in the inter- 
pretation of the Scriptures, which they claimed for 
themselves.. It was exercised by them at their own 
peril. 
As a matter of curiosity to some, and of convenience 
to others, we here present those ancient formulas of 
faith, which are frequently denominated, The Three 
Creeds. The earliest of these is doubtless that which 
is called The Apostles’ Creed ; not because it was sup- 
posed to have been drawn up by the apostles, but be- 
cause it was regarded as embodying the great truths 
which they taught. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 255 


THE APOSTLES’ CREED.* 


*‘T believe in God the Father almighty, maker of 
heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our 
Lord ; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of 
the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was 
crucified, dead, and buried ; he descended into hell ; 
the third day he arose again from the dead; he as- 
cended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of 
God the Father almighty ; from thence he shall come 
to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy 
Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of 
saints ; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the 
body ; and the life everlasting. Amen.’’ 


The WNVicene Creed is so called, because it was 
adopted by the general Council at Nice, in the year 
3825. It was ‘‘ designed to be thenceforward the only 
standard of orthodoxy.”’? But the general Council held 
at Constantinople, in the year 381, made some addi- 
tion to this formula ; which is here inserted, and in- 
cluded in brackets. We give.the whole from the 
original Greek, in Knapp’s Theology, p. 154. 


* The Book of Common Prayer: Oxford, 1781. 


256 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


THE NICENE CREED. 


“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, 
maker of all things both visible and invisible: and m 
one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of 
the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of 
the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of 
very God, begotten, not made, of the same substance 
with the Father; by whom all things were made, both 
which are in heaven and which are in earth; who, for 
us men and for our salvation, came down, and became 
flesh, and was in human condition, suffered, and rose 
the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming 
to judge the living and the dead: and in the Holy 
Ghost [the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from 
the Father, who with the Father and the Son together 
is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets]. 
But those who say, that there was a time when he (the 
Son) did not exist, and that before he was begotten he 
did not exist, and who say that he was made of nothing, 
or of another substance or being, or that the Son of 
God was created, modified, or transformed,—the whole 
Church anathematizes.”’ 


The Athanasian Creed was of later date. It was 
not drawn up by him whose name it bears; but it was 
written originally in Latin, some time after his death, 
and was accepted as embodying the results of those 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY.’ O57 


protracted controversies in which Athanasius was en- 
gaged, stating and defining the doctrines for which 
that distmguished father so long contended. It may 
be regarded as the Creed of the Western fathers, 
as the Nicene Creed was of the Greek or Eastern 
fathers. 


THE ATHANASIAN CREED.* 


** Quicunque vult. 


‘¢ Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is 
necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith, 
except every one do keep whole and undefiled ; with- 
out doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the 
catholic faith is this : 

‘ That we worship one God in Trinity, and-Trinity 
in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing 
the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, 
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. 
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal, the majesty 
coéternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, 
and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, 
the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The 
Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, 
and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father 
eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal ; 


* The Book of Common Prayer ; Oxford, 1781. 


258 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. 
Ags also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor 
three uncreated ; but one uncreated, and one incom- 
prehensible: so likewise, the Father is almighty, the 
Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty; and yet 
they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So 
the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost 
is God ; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 
So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the 
Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one 
Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian 
verity, to acknowledge every Person by himself to be 
God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic 
religion, to say, there be three Gods, or three Lords. 
The Father is made of none ; neither created nor be- 
gotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, 
nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the 
Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor 
begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not 
three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy 
Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity, 
none is afore or after other; none is greater or less 
than another ; but the whole three Persons are co€ter- 
nal together, and coéqual. So that in all things, as is 
afore said, the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity 
is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, 
must thus think of the Trinity. 

‘¢ Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salva- 
tion, that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 259 


believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of 
the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of 
the substance of his mother, born in the world ; perfect 
God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul, and human 
flesh subsisting ; equal to the Father as touching his 
Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his 
manhood ; who, although he be God and man, yet he 
is not two, but one Christ ; one, not by the conversion 
of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the man- 
hood into God; one altogether, not by confusion of 
substance, but by unity of Person. For, as the rea- 
sonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and man ig 
one Christ ; who suffered for our salvation, descended 
into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; he 
ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the 
Father, God almighty ; from whence he shall come to 
judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming, all 
men shall rise again with. their bodies, and shall give 
account for their own works. And they that have 
done good, shall go into life everlasting ; and they that 
have done evil, into everlasting fire. 

“This is the catholic faith ; which except a man 
believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.’’ 


Such is the language—the costume, and such the 
spirit of toleration, in which the great truths of revela- 
tion were held in those early ages of the church. Nor 
did they originate with these Creeds. Both the lan- 


260 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


guage and the philosophy in which these truths are 
here presented, were of an earlier date, and were simi- 
larly held by many of the Ante-Nicene fathers, and 
doubtless introduced gradually, in accordance with the 
prevalent philosophy of the age, some time in the 
second century. Having been long employed with 
different degrees of precision and formality, this philo- 
sophical language had come to be held by a large pro- 
portion of the fathers, as sacred ; and it was at length, 
in times of earnest controversy, embodied in the two 
latter creeds, especially the last, with the utmost pre- 
cision and accuracy. Thus embodied, it has been 
held, more or less generally, as orthodox ; i. e. it was 
considered to be in accordance with the Scriptures. 
Hence it came to be regarded as sacred and inviolable ; 
possessing authority equal at least to that of the Scrip- 
tures; and it was the rule of judging of soundness in 
the faith. The great effort seems to have been, not 
simply to maintain what the Bible really and plainly 
teaches ; but also, THOSE SCHOLASTIC FoRMs of lan- 
guage and of doctrine; as though Brble truth could 
not otherwise be maintained. The two things came to 
be held as one-and inseparable. 

It is interesting to observe, how the doctrine of the 
Trinity was preached in England, two centuries and a 
half ago. For this purpose, we shall introduce a few 
paragraphs from a work of Samuel Otes, of Corpus 
College, Cambridge, and rector of Marsham and South 
Keppes, in Norfolk ; who died about the beginning of 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 261 


the seventeenth century.* His ‘‘ Exposition of the 
General Epistle of Saint Jude”? was “‘ preached in a 
weekly lecture to a public audience on the market day, 
at Northwalsham in Norfolk.’? Some time after his 
death, it was published by his son, Samuel Otes; in 
1633; fol. The lectures are without date; except as 
it is incidentally mentioned, that the forty-first was 
preached in 1602. ‘* The market day’? at that time 
was on the Sabbath ; for the accommodation of the ~ 
people. That practice was gradually discontinued ; 
and in the time of Charles II., 1667, markets on that 
day were prohibited.+ 

These extracts are from the third sermon upon the 
first verse of Jude. The preacher says : 

** For all our sanctification and holiness is from the 
Lord, as it appeareth plainly by the words of my text ; 
Sanctified of God the Father : Causa efficiens sancti- ' 
tatis ; the efficient cause of holiness is God the Father: 
Instrumentalis causa fides ; the instrumental cause is 
faith ; for Fides cor purtficat, faith purifieth the heart. © 
Materialis causa, the material cause, est energia sanc. 
titatis que est in Christo, for of his fullness we have 
all recewed, even grace for grace. Formalis causa, 
the formal cause, est nostra renovatio ab impuris qua- 
litatibus ad puras et integras, is our renewing from 
impure qualities to pure and sound: Finalis, Dei cul- 
tus, the final, God’s worship, to the honor of God and 
the edifying of our neighbor. . 


* Bibliotheca Brit.; Otes. + Penny Cyclop.; Markets. 


262 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


‘“‘ But yet observe with me, that though sanctifica- 
tion be attributed to the Father, yet the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost are not excluded ; for we hold the principle 
of the schoolmen, opera Trinitatis quoad extra sunt 
indivisa ; the outward works of God are common to 
the whole Trinity; and so are we sanctified by Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost; yet sanctification is here 
ascribed to the Father, as being the ground and first 
author thereof. For the Son sanctifieth by meriting 
sanctification ; the Holy Ghost sanctifieth by working | 
it; but the Father sanctifieth, both by sending his Son 
to merit it, and also by giving the Holy Spirit to work 
it. Thus opera Trinitatis, the outward works of God 
- are common to the whole Trinity. Sed opera Trinita- 
tis quoad intus est singularia ; the inward works of 
God are singular, and proper to some Persons of the 
Trinity: ut patri potentia, filio redemptio, spiritu 
sanctificatio tribuitur ; as‘ power is ascribed to the 
Father, redemption to the Son, sanctification to the Holy 
Ghost; and yet these now and then be attributed to 
all three Persons. Quod Ursinus ; servato ordine 
agendi, for as the Father and the Holy Ghost do re- 
deem, and yet mediately by the Son; so the Father and 
the Son do sanctify, yet mediately by the Holy Ghost. 
The proper or incommunicable works of the Trinity 
are the inward eternal and hypostatical properties ; as 
thus: pater generat, the Father begetteth, the Son 1s 
begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceedeth ; and yet the 
Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the 
Holy Ghost either Father or Son. The other works of the 


A-BIBLICAL TRINITY. 268 


Trinity are indivisible, howsoever sometimes distinct ; 
as creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, sanc- 
tification to the Holy Ghost. Peter Martyr saith 
thus: Pater ut fons, filius ut flumen, spiritus ut 
rivus ab utroque procedens ; the Father as the foun- 
tain, the Son as the flood, the Spirit as the river pro- 
ceeding from both. ‘The fountain is not the flood, nor 
the flood the fountain, nor the river either fountain or 
flood ; and yet all these be one water. So the Father 
is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Spirit 
either Father or Son, and yet but one God. Et hi 
tres sanctificant, and all these three sanctify; quoth 
Lactantius. 4b uno omnia, per unum omnia, a quo, 
per quem, in quo omnia, unus a se, unus ab uno, unus 
ab ambobus, una tamen et eadem operatio: all things 
from one, all things by one, all things in one; from 
whom, by whom, and in whom are all things; one of 
himself, one from one, one from both, and yet one and 
the same operation. Tres sunt in trinitate, non statu, 
sed ordine ; non essentia, sed forma; non protestate, 
sed specie ; unus status, essentiea et protestatis, quia 
sunt unus Deus. There be three Persons in the 
Trinity, not in state and condition, but in order ; not 
in essence, but in form; not in power, but in kind; for 
there is one and the same state of essence and power, 
because these three Persons be but one God. 

*‘ But to leave this: The Persons of the Trinity 
are here distinguished ; they are sanctified of God the 
Father, and reserved unto Jesus Christ. The Persons 
of the Father and the Son are discerned [distinguished], 


264 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


as in all other places: Pater quast fons exuberans ; 
jilius ut rivus defluens ; ille ut sol, hic ut radius ; 
alle ut os, hic ut vox procedens : non autem separantur, 
sicut nec rwus a fonte, nec radius a sole, nec vox ab 
ore: quia aqua fontis est in rivo, et solis lumen in 
radio, et oris virtus in-voce: The Father as the foun- 
tain abounding, the Son as the river flowing; he as the 
sun, this as the beam; he as the mouth, this as the 
voice proceeding: they are not separated, as neither 
the river is separated from the fountain, nor the beam 
from the sun, nor the voice from the mouth; for the 
water in the fountain is in the river, as the light of the 
sun is in the beam, and the virtue [power] of the mouth 
is in the voice. 

“‘ The distinction of the Persons obscurely delivered 
in the Old Testament, in the New is made clearer 
than the noon-day. For at the baptism of Christ, the 
Son was seen; the Holy Ghost descended like a dove. 
Again: Christ bad them baptize, in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Again: 
This was Paul’s farewell to the churches: The grace 
of our Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship 
of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Again: Saint 
John saith, That there are three that bear witness in 
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, 
and these three are one. Also the place, Luke 1: 35: 
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power 
of the highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also 
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be 
called the Son of God; doth sufficiently prove the 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 265 


Trinity ; which places, the Confession of Belgia quoted 
against Jews, Mahometans, Marcion, Mans, Sabellius, 
Somositanus,”’ etc. (pp. 82-34.) 

The author of this Exposition was an able man, as 
the whole work shgws, and distinguished in his day ; 
and these representations of the Trinity may be re- 
garded as a fair specimen of the form in which it was 
then held by intelligent men. How much they aid us 
in bringing forth to the light what the Scriptures have 
left in the dark, and in understanding what is not re- 
vealed of the Godhead, the reader can judge. The 
great outlines of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity 
are there, the Supreme Divinity of the Father, Son, 
and Spirit; but the filling up is from the Athanasian 
Creed, under the guidance of the imagination ; and the 
costume is scholastic. Some of the illustrations, how- 
ever, hardly comport with the idea of the supreme 

_- Divinity of the Son and the Spirit. Though the foun- 
tain, the flood, and the river ‘‘ be one water,” yet the 
latter two are derived from the former one. But there 
is no doubt this author, in common with many others, 
thought he saw enough in the Scriptures to justify the 
representations which he made of the Trinity ; just 


“ As learned Commentators view 
In Homer, more than Homer knew.’” 


The Rev. Samuel Willard, ‘‘ of the South Church,’’ 
Boston, Mass., and President of Harvard College, 
Cambridge, delivered a course of Lectures—two hun- 


dred and fifty in number—on The Assembly’s Shorter 
12 : 


266 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Catechism. Some years after his death these were 
published (4to. 1726), with a Preface, by the Revs. 
Joseph Sewall and Thomas Prince, pastors of the same 
church, under the title of Body of Divinity ; which 
work contains a very complete view of the doctrine 
of the New England churches, at the time in which the 
author lived. Mr. Willard was a learned, eminent, 
and most influential divine, whose writings were re- 
ceived with great respect. Speaking of the Trinity, 
he says (pp. 97-101) : 

‘¢ The Divine allsufficiency displays itself unto us in 
God’s essences and subsistences.”? (He had already 
treated of the Divine unity.) “‘ This one is three. 
The doctrine of three Persons in the unity of the 
Divine essence is one of the great mysteries of religion, 
and beyond the comprehension of the human under- 
standing.’ | 

‘C1. In the Divine essence there are certain Divine | 
subsistences. . . . . Though there be but one God, 
that one God subsists in a diverse manner. ... . He 
is three ; not three Gods, but three manners of bemg 
are in this one God.”’ 

‘©2. These subsistences are distinguished from the 
essence, as the relation of a being is from the being 
itself. . . . A relation is less than an essence... . 
... A man differs modally from himself considered 
ag aman, and as a master, and as a servant ; which, 
though it be but a dark resemblance to this great 
truth, yet it is such as God accommodates us with. 
Thus, then, though God the Father be God, yet he is 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 267 


not Father as he is God, but as he begets the Son. 
Hence these relations are assigned to him in the con- 
crete, and not in the abstract.”’ s 

‘¢ 3. These subsistences are significantly called Per- 
SOLS seria: Person in our account is an individual 
subststence of a rational being.”’ 

Prof. John Wollebwus, of Basle, in Switzerland, in 
his Compendium of Christian Theology, which was 
used as a classic in Harvard College, in 1776, makes 
the following statement on the same subject: ‘‘ The 
Persons of the Deity are subsistences, any one.of which 
has the whole essence of God; nevertheless differing in 
incommunicable properties.* Further, from Willard. 

**4.°A Divine person may be thus described: It is 
the Divine essence subsisting under an individual rela- 
tive property. 

‘* Here are three things : 

*““(1.) That the essence and subsistence go together 
to constitute a Divine person. Subsistence adds to 


substance its individuation, or its distinct manner of 
being.”’? [Save the metaphysical terms, and the as- 
sumption that all this is included in the Divine nature 
itself,—a grave matter for human philosophy to as- 
sume,—how does this representation of Person differ 
from that given at the beginning of the second chapter | 
of this work 2—the Being himself and his manifesta- 

tion. | 


* Persone Deitatis sunt subsistentie, quarum quelibet essentiam 
Dei totam habet, proprietatibus interim incommunicabilibus differen- 
tes. Londoni: 1750, p. 13. 

7 


268 A BIBLICAL TRINITY, 


**(2.) These subsistences are so many several rela- 
tions of the Godhead to itself.’’ 

“¢(3.) Not a relation alone, but a relative property 

denotes a Divine Person. It must be a particular in- 
dividuating relation. It must be proper to this Person, 
and distinguish him from the other Persons; and there- 
fore it must not be that which is common to more than 
one.”’ . 
‘¢ They (the three Persons) are equal in operation: 
all the works of. efficiency are done by them jointly. 
They are all the works of God, flowing from the 
essence, which they are all concerned in: all three made 
the world.’’ 

In hike manner, Dr. Woods says (Works, v. 1, pp. 
41, 42): ‘ Divine works generally belong in common 
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and yet 
there are official works, as we may call them, which 
belong, not exclusively indeed, but in a special man- 
ner, to one of the Three. God, absolutely considered, 
sanctifies; the Father sanctifies; the Son sanctifies ; 
but the work belongs in a peculiar sense to the Holy 
“Spirit.?? 

‘“‘ There is one important exception. The work of 
making atonement for sin, and all that Christ did in 
his human nature, belong to him exclusively.” “The 
practical view is attended with far less difficulty than 
the speculative view.” | 

“ God absolutely considered”?—what igs that? Is it 
God acting as moral governor simply, i. e. God as he 
is revealed to the angels, or as he was revealed to Adam 


ood 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 269 


before his fall, who sanctifies men? Such is not the 
God who is revealed to man; for, since the “ first 
father’s fall,’’ the God so revealed is “* God in Christ.”’ 
Is it God ‘‘ without restriction, limitation, or reference’’ 
to any of his manifestations to men—is this “* God 
absolutely considered?’ The revealed Sanctifier of 
men is a different Being from this. Is it the true God 
himself, manifesting himself variously and under dif- 
ferent names, as Jehovah, God,—the Father, Son, or 
Holy Spirit, ‘‘ one of the Three,’’ but more commonly 
the last,—or unger some other name by which he is 
called, who is the Sanctifier of men? ‘This is exactly 
the view of the subject which has been presented in the 
foregoing pages. 

But, instead of saying that ‘‘ the outward works of 
God are common to the whole Trinity, but the inward 
works of God are singular [belong to different Divine 
agents|—the eternal and hypostatical properties’? of 
each Person ; that “‘ all the works of efficiency are done 
by them jointly,—flowing from the Divine essence,— 
all three made the world ;’? and that ‘‘ Divine works 
generally belong in common to the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost ;’? (not to add, ‘‘ which except a 
man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved ;’’)—-instead 
of so representing the matter, how much: more simple 
and natural is the way in which the Scriptures speak on 
these subjects? Which is Divine teaching, and which 
is human philosophy ? No wonder that “ the practi- 
cal view is attended with far less difficulty than the 
speculative view.”’? The former is given in the Bible, 


270 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


for practical purposes; the latter is furnished by the 
schools, with endless contention. 

‘Dr. Jeremiah Taylor says, “that he who goes 
about to speak of the mystery of the Trinity, and does 
it by words and names of man’s invention, talking of 
essences and existences, hypostases and personalities, 
priorities and co€qualities, &c., and unity in plurali- 
ties, may amuse himself and bud a tabernacle in his 
head, and talk of something he knows not what ; but 
the good man, that feels the power of the Father, and 
to whom the Son is become wisdom, ganctification, and 
redemption, in whose heart the love of the Spirit of 
God is shed abroad, this man, though he understands 
nothing of what is unintelligible, yet he alone truly un- 
derstands the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.??* 

Are we, then, under obligation to regard this ancient 
scholastic -philosophy of the Trinity as sacred and in- 
violable, because it has been so long associated in the 
pious mind with the most sacred truths of revelation, 
and furnished the costume in which they have been 
presented? If not in accordance with the Scriptures, 
interpreted by that common sense of men to which they 
are addressed, why should this philosophy be regarded 
as true, any more than the ancient scholastic philosophy 
of the human mind? Much of this latter philosophy, 
particularly “‘the doctrine of ideas, which had kept 
possession of the schools for upward of two thousand 
years,’’? Decartes refuted. In this empire of Meta- 


* Doddridge’s Lectures, p. 403. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. OTL 


physics, notwithstanding the efforts which were made 
to resist it, the Cartesian philosophy ‘ soon obtained 
possession of the schools, and drove Aristotle from the 
throne.’’*. The new philosophy, however, contained 
some absurdities, “‘ such as his (Decartes’) vortices and 
innate ideas,’’? which soon shared the same fate from 
**the cautious and sensible system of Locke, who rejected 
what was false, or unwarranted, and retained, explained, 
and amplified what was useful.’’? Then followed Reid 
and Stewart in a similar manner. Thus the real truth 
repecting the nature of the human mind and its im- 
pressions and operations was gradually brought to 
light, and ‘‘the barbarous language of the scholastic 
learning” laid aside. That false philosophy did not 
alter the truth ; nor did the discovery and rejection of 
the former do any injury to the latter. The human 
mind still exists and operates as it always has done ; 
even when the science of mind was enveloped in the 
mists and absurdities of the scholastic learning. So, 
the planets retain their full dimensions, and move on 
in their respective orbits just as they always have done, 
notwithstanding the Copernican or true system of 
Astronomy has taken the place of that ancient system 
which represented all the heavenly bodies as revolving 
around the earth as its center. But it is. always bet- 
ter—far better—that the truth itself stmply should be 
received, on any subject, rather than erroneous views 
of it; even though very much of that truth be still-re- 


* Edinb. Encylopedia. 


972 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


tained in the system. Especially is it so in respect to 
the great practical truths of revelationtruths which 
take hold on time, and which take hold on eternity. 

But there is a very common notion which stands in 
the way of any material progress in theological science, 
so long as it is held and cherished. This is, that no 
discoveries or umprovements in Theology are to be ex- 
pected. ‘That heavenly-minded man, Dr. John H. 
Rice, uttered a similar sentiment, in his sermon before 
the General Assembly at Philadelphia, some thirty 
years ago. But some men of far-reaching minds, as 
Robinson and Edwards, have thought differently. : 

‘¢ No discoveries or improvements in Theology”’— 
this is ambiguous. The revelation itself, as it came 
from its Author, man will not be able to “‘improve ;”’ 
nor will he ‘ discover’? what is not revealed of things 
unseen. Yet many think they have discovered in the 
unrevealed nature of God, something which lays a 
foundation for distinctions or distinct Persons there, 
furnishing ‘‘ infinitely blessed society in the Divine 
mind.”? Still, it is acknowledged to be “ a mystery ;” 
i. e. a thing not revealed. Yet they tell us, it may be 
revealed that there is such “‘a mystery,’ though it is 
not explained. But this “‘ may be’ is no proof that 
it 1s really so ; though it often seems to be regarded 
as a sufficient proof. If the soundness of this their 
conclusion is questioned, they immediately take refuge 
in thick darkness ; whether this be an amprovement, 
or not. 

But in respect to Theology as a human science, 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. on38 


there is ample room for discoveries and improvements. 
There is no good reason for supposing that the Nicene 
and Athanasian fathers possessed theological science, 
philosophy, and language, in such perfection that we 
have nothing to do but to perpetuate their views and 
their language ; any more than that Aristotle and his 
followers possessed the true philosophy of the human 
mind in such perfection, that to depart from it is wholly 
unwarrantable. The former had before them the facts 
made known. in the Scriptures ; the latter had before 
them the human mind and its operations. We have, 
in both these respects, the same facts or truths made 
known to us, in the same ways, with the additional 
benefit of subsequent investigations. As the fathers 
examined the Scriptures, and came to such results in 
doctrine as seemed to them most in accordance with 
truth, viewed in the light of their own philosophy; so 
should we, guided by common sense, examine the same 
Scriptures in the light of “ our exegetical guide,” and 
come to such results as accord strictly with revealed _ 
truth. Those fathers had not “ the keys of the king- 
dom’”’ given to them in such a sense as to justify them 
in saying of their own views of Divine truth—“ which 
except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.” 
He who really believes in Christ as the true Messiah, 
may yet be saved, even though he should not receive 
the ancient scholastic philosophy of the Trinity ; while 
some who receive it, and regard themselves in the 
fullest sense as “the children of the kingdom,”? may 


“be cast out.” — 
12* 


274 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


If the reception of those scholastic views of the 
‘Trinity is to be regarded as indispensable to salvation, 
or to credible evidence of piety and sanity, or to the 
reputation of Biblical orthodoxy, or to the charity and 
fellowship of the brotherhood in any of these respects, 
what becomes of such men as Richard Baxter and Isaac 
Watts ?—men whose names will be remembered with 
affection, with vencration, and with gratitude to God 
by his children, centuries after the names of their 
scrupulous rejecters shall have been forgotten ; unless 
some signal act of bigotry should confer upon them that 
kind of earthly immortality which has fallen to the 
lot of the Pharisees of old. And how much does 
the favorable opinion of those persons deserve to be 
esteemed, whose charity and fellowship are so strait- 
ened and cramped by the spirit of caste, that even 
Jesus himself, if he did not sanction their scholastic 
views and conform to their settled practice, but thought 
fit.to eat with publicans and sinners and without wash- 
ing his hands,. would seem to be regarded as unsound 
in the faith ? 

‘“‘ Mr. Baxter seems, as some of the schoolmen did, 
to have thought the three Divine persons to be one and 
the same God, understanding, willing, and beloved by 
himself ; or wisdom, power, and love ; which he thinks 
illustrated by three essential formalities (as he calls 
them), in the soul of man, viz., vital active power, in- 
tellect, and will ;.and in the sun, motvon, light, and 
heat.”?* 

* Doddridge’s Lect., p. 402. 


eee eS 


ee ee ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 975 


- What shail we say of Baxter, if the common scho- 
lastic theory of the Trinity—either in one form or the 
ether—is to be regarded as the only statement of the 
subject which is consistent with holding the vital truths 
of Christianity? He evidently discarded that theory, 
as being a true representation of the Trinity as taught 
in the Scriptures. The question is not, whether his 
representation of the subject is the best—the one most 
in accordance with the Scripture account of the mat- 
ter ; but, was his rejection of the common theory in- 
* consistent with holding clearly and presenting distinctly 
and powerfully the great, vital truths of Christianity ? 
Is there nothing of these in the writings of Richard 
Baxter,—which have been read by hundreds of thou- 
sands of persons with the greatest benefit, which are 
published so, extensively and scattered so widely, like 
** leaves for the healing of the nations,’’ and which will 
undoubtedly be read with profit by increasing numbers 
from generation to generation? Let the multitudes 
who have from age to age been turned to God by read- 
ing his Call to the Unconverted, and the Christians 
everywhere who have been humbled, animated, com- 
forted, strengthened by reading his Saints’? Rest and 
Dying Thoughts, give the answer. 3 
‘Dr. Watts maintained one supreme God dwelling 
in the human nature of Christ, which he supposes to 
have existed the first of all creatures; and speaks of 
the Divine Logos, as the wisdom of God, and the Holy 
Spirit, as the Divine power, or the influence and effect 
of it; which he says is a seriptural Person, i. e. 


276 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


spoken of figuratively in Scripture under personal 
characters.’’* 

It is well known that Dr. Watts, while yet in the 
meridian of life, rejected the common theory of the 
Trinity ; not believing it to be taught in the word of 
God. Yet he received, with the simplicity of a child, 
whatever he believed that word to contain. His views 
are distinctly stated in some of his Dissertations. In 
one of them he says, among other things: ‘‘ So far as 
our ideas of arithmetic and reason can reach, this 
seems to be a plain truth: ‘If one infinite spirit be 
one God, two or three infinite spirits must be two or three 
Gods.’ And though the patrons of this opinion sup- 
pose these three spirits to be so nearly united as to be 
called one God, merely to avoid the charge of poly- 
theism, yet it must be granted that this one God must, 
then, be one complex infinite Being, or Spirit, made up 
of three single infinite beings or spirits ; which is such 
a notion of the one true God as I think reason nor 
revelation will admit. And yet, if this were the true 
notion of the one God, a ts very strange that Scrip- 
ture should not clearly and expressly reveal it.” 

He further says: ‘‘ The common explication of 
the eternal generation of the Son, and eternal pro- 
cession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, 
which was authorized in the Latin churches, was de- 
rived down to us from the Popish schoolmen ; though 
it is now become a part of the established or orthodox 


* Doddridge’s Lect., p. 403. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. pat Gi 


faith in most of the Protestant nations, because at the 
Reformation they knew no better way to explain the 
doctrine of the sacred Trinity. They contented them- 
selves to say it was incomprehensible, and thus forbid 
all further inquiries.’’ Just as it is said of distinctions, 
or distinct Persons in the nature of the Godhead itself. 

In his solemn Address to the Deity, Dr. Watts poured 
out his soul before God, over this whole subject, in a 
manner which shows, most clearly, his reverence for the 
Holy Scriptures, his humility, his teachableness, his 
earnest desire to understand and receive all that God 
had taught. This Address entire is rarely to be met 
with, except in his voluminous works, which few can 
purchase. As it is directly in point, showing the views 
of a clear, discerning mind, though still somewhat in 
darkness, and the feelings of a sincere, devout, and 
humble Christian on this important subject, the whole 
of it, as published in the London quarto edition of his 
works, of 1810, vol. iv., pp. 670-673, will be here in- 
‘serted. | 

The title which the editor prefixes to it 1s as follows : 
‘‘The author’s solemn Address to the great and ever- 
blessed God on a review of what he had written in the 
Trinitarian controversy, prefixed by him to some pieces’ 
on that subject, which it was not judged necessary 
to publish.”? But why so? It was a part of his 
_“ Works.”? Why “‘not judged necessary,” as well as to 
publish the Address itself? Is the Scripture doctrine 
of the Trinity afraid of the light ? Is not God’s 
truth, in the open field of fair, manly, and earnest dis- 


278 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


cussion, stronger than anything which erring and sinful ' 
man can bring against it? Did not its Author intend 
that what he has revealed on the subject should be in- 
vestigated, understood, and received on the authority of 
his own word ; ‘“ that our faith should not stand in the 
wisdom of men, but in the power of God ??? This 
very hush-up—this effort to keep out everything but 
darkness, betrays weakness and distrust. Divine truth 
needs no such aid. 
But let us listen to the author’s 


‘SOLEMN ADDRESS TO THE DEITY. 


‘Righteous art thou, O Lord, when I plead with 
thee concerning thy judgments. Permit me, O my 
God and Father, to plead with thee concerning the 
revelations of thy nature and thy grace, which are 
made in thy Gospel: And let me do it with all that 
humble reverence, and that holy awe of thy majesty, 
which becomes a creature in the presence of his God. 

“‘ Hast thou not, O Lord God almighty, hast thou 
not transacted thy Divine and important affairs among 
men by thy Son Jesus Christ, and by thy Holy Spirit ? 
and hast thou not ordained that men should transact 
their highest and most momentous concerns with thee, 
by thy Son and by thy Spirit? Hast thou not, by the 
mouth of thy Son Jesus, required all that profess his 
religion to be washed with water in the name of the 
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Is it not 
my duty then, to inquire, who or what are these sacred 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 76!) 


names, and what they signify? Must I not know 
thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ thy Son, 
whom thou hast sent, that I may fulfill all my respec- 
tive duties toward thyself and thy Son, in hope of eter- 
nal life? Hath not thy Son himself appealed to thee 
in his last prayer, that eternal life depends upon this | 
knowledge? And since thou hast made so much use 
of thy Holy Spirit in our religion, must I not have 
some knowledge of this thy Spirit also, that I may pay 
thee all these honors thou requirest from this Divine 
revelation 2 

** Hast thou not ascribed Divine names, and titles, 
and characters to thy Son and thy Holy Spirit, in thy 
word, as well as assumed them to thyself? And hast 
thou not appointed to them such glorious offices as can- 
not be executed without something of Divinity or true 
Godhead in them? And yet art not thou, and thou 
alone, the true God? How shall a poor weak creature 
be able to adjust and reconcile these clashing ideas, or 
to understand this.mystery? Or must I believe and 
act blindfold, without understanding ? 

“Holy Father, thou knowest how firmly I believe, 
with all my- soul, whatsoever thou hast plainly written 
and revealed in thy word. I believe thee to be the 
only true God, the supreme of beings, self-sufficient for 
thine own existence, and for all thy infinite affairs and 
_ transactions among thy creatures. I believe thy Son 
Jesus Christ to be all-sufficient for the glorious work 
of mediation between God and man, to which thou hast 
appointed him. I believe he is a man, in whom dwells 


280 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. I believe he is 
one with God; he is God manifest in the flesh ; and 
that the man Jesus is so closely and inseparably united 
with the true and eternal Godhead, as to become one 
Person, even as a human soul and body make one man. 
I believe that this illustrious Person is hereby possessed 
of Divine dignity sufficient to make full atonement for 
the sins of men by his sufferings and death, even though 
sin be accounted an infinite evil; and that he hath 
all-suflicient power to raise himself from the dead, to 
ascend to heaven, and fulfill the blessed works for which 
thou hast exalted him, and to govern and judge the 
world in thine own appointed time. 

“TI believe also thy blessed Spirit hath almighty 
power and influence to do all thy will, to instruct men 
effectually in Divine truths, to change the hearts of 
fallen mankind from sin to holiness, to carry on thy 
work of illumination, sanctification, and consolation on 
the hearts of all thy children, and to bring them safe 
to the heavenly world. I yield myself up joyfully and 
thankfully to this method of thy salvation, as it is re- 
vealed in thy Gospel. But I acknowledge my dark- 
ness still. I want to have this wonderful -doctrine of 
the all-sufficiency of thy Son and thy Spirit, for these 
Divine works, made a little plainer. May not thy 
humble creature be permitted to know what share they 
can have in thy Deity? Is it a vain, sinful curiosity 
to desire to have this article in such a light, as may not 
diminish the eternal glory of the unity of the true God, 
nor of the supremacy of Thee, the Father of all 2 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 981 


*¢ Hadst thou informed me, gracious Father, in any 
place of thy word, that this Divine doctrine is not to 
be understood by men, and yet they were required to 
believe it, I would have subdued all my curiosity to 
faith, and submitted my wandering and doubtful ima- 
ginations, as far as it was possible, to the holy and 
wise determinations of thy word. But I cannot find 
thou hast anywhere forbid me to understand it, or to 
make these inquiries. My conscience is the best natu- 
ral light thou hast put within me, and since thou hast 
given me the Scriptures, my own conscience bids me 
search the Scriptures, to find out truth and eternal 
life. It bids me try all things, and hold fast that 
which is good. And thy own word, by the same ex- 
pressions, encourages this holy practice. I have, there- 
fore, been long searching into this Divine doctrine, 
that I may pay thee due honor with understanding. 
Surely I ought to know the God whom I worship, 
whether he be one pure and simple being, or whether 
thou art a three-fold Deity, consisting of the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

** Dear and blessed God! hadst thou been pleased, 
in any one plain Scripture, to have informed me which 
of the different opinions about the Holy Trinity, among 
the contending parties of Christians, had been true, thou’ 
knowest with how much zeal, satisfaction, and joy my 
unbiased heart would have opened itself to receive and 
embrace the Divine discovery. Hadst thou told me 
plainly, in any single text, that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit are three real distinct Persons in thy Di- 


282 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


vine nature, I had never suffered myself to be bewildered 
in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many 
strong fears of assenting to the mere inventions of men, 
instead of Divine doctrine ; but I should have humbly 
and immediately accepted thy words, so far as it was 
possible for me to understand them, as the only rule of 
my faith. Or hadst thou been pleased to express and 
include this proposition in the several scattered parts 
of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience 
might with ease find out and with certainty infer this 
doctrine, I should have joyfully employed, all my rea- 
soning powers, with their utmost skill and activity, to 
have found out this inference, and ingrafted it into my 
soul. 

“Thou hast taught. me, Holy Father, by thy pro- 
phets, that the way of holiness in the times of the Gos- 
pel, or under the kingdom of the Messiah, shall be a 
highway, a plain and easy path; so that the wayfaring 
man, or the stranger, ‘though a fool, shall not err 
therein.? And thou hast called the poor and the igno- 
rant, the mean and the foolish things of this world, to 
the knowledge of thyself and thy Son, and taught them 
to receive and partake of the salvation which thou hast 
provided. But how can such weak creatures ever take 
in so strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine as 
this, in the explication and defense whereof multitudes 
of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost 
themselves in infinite subtilties and dispute, and end- 

. less mazes of darkness? And can this strange and 
perplexing notion of three real Persons going to make 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 283 


one true God, be so necessary and so important a part 
of that Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testa- 
ment and the New, is represented as so plain and so 
easy, even to the meanest understandings ? 

“*O thou Searcher of hearts, who knowest all things, 
I appeal to thee concerning the sincerity of my inqui- 
ries into these discoveries of thy word. Thou knowest 
me, thou hast seen me, and hast tried my heart toward 
thee: If there be any lurking hypocrisy in my heart, 
any secret bias toward anything but truth, uncover it, 
O Father of lights, and banish it from my soul forever. 
If thine eye discovers the least spark of any criminal 
prejudice in any corner of my soul, extinguish it 
utterly, that I may not be led astray from the truth, 
in matters of such importance, by the least glance of 
error or mistake. 

“Thou art witness, O my God, with what constancy 
and care I have read and searched thy holy word, how 
early and late, by night and by day, I have been 
making these inquiries; how frequently I have been 
seeking thee on my bended knees, and directing my 
humble address to thee, to enlighten my darkness, and 
to show me the meaning of thy word, that I may learn 
what I must believe, and what I must practice with 
regard to this doctrine, in order to please thee, and 
obtain eternal life. 

. “ Great God, who seest all things! thou hast beheld 
what busy temptations have been often fluttering about. 
my heart, to call it off from these laborious and difficult 
inquiries, and to give up:thy word and thy Gospel as 


284 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


an unintelligible book, and betake myself to the light 
of nature and reason; but thou hast been pleased by 
thy Divine power to scatter these temptations, and fix 
my heart and hope again upon that Savior and that 
eternal life which thou hast revealed in thy word, and 
proposed therein to our knowledge and our acceptance. 
Blessed be the name of my God, that has not suffered 
me to abandon the Gospel of his Son Jesus! And 
blessed be that Holy Spirit that has kept me attentive 
to the truth delivered in the Gospel, and inclined me 
to wait longer in my search of these Divine truths, 
under the hope of thy gracious illumination ! 

_ “TJ humbly call thee to witness, O my God, what a 
holy jealousy I ever wear about my heart, lest I should 
do the slightest dishonor to thy supreme Majesty, in 
any of my inquiries or determinations. Thou seest 
what a religious fear, and what a tender solicitude | 
maintain on my soul, lest I should think or speak any- 
thing to diminish the grandeurs and honors of thy Son 
_ Jesus, my dear Mediator, to whom I owe my everlast- 
ing hopes. Thou knowest how much afraid I am of 
speaking one word, which may be construed into a 
neglect of thy blessed Spirit, from whom I hope I am 
daily receiving happy influences of light and strength. 
Guard all the motions of my mind, O almighty God, 
against everything that borders upon these dangers. 
korbid my thoughts to indulge, and forbid my pen to 
write one word, that should sink those grand ideas 
which belong to thyself, or thy Son, or thy Spirit. 
Forbid it, O my God, that I should ever be so un- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 285. 


happy as to unglorify my Father, my Savior, or my 
Sanctifier, in any of my sentiments or expressions con-— 
cerning them. 

‘* Blessed and faithful God, hast thou not promised 
that the meek thou wilt guide in judgment, the meek 
thou wilt teach thy way? Hast thou not told us by 
Isaiah thy prophet, that thou wilt bring the blind by a 
way which they knew not, and wilt lead them in paths 
which they have not known? Hast thou not informed 
us by thy prophet Hosea, that if we follow on to know 
_ the Lord, then we shall know him? Hath not thy 
Son, our Savior, assured us, that our heavenly Father 
will give his Holy Spirit to them who ask him? And 
is he not appointed to guide us into all truth? Have 
I not sought the gracious guidance of thy good Spirit 
continually ? Am I not truly sensible of my own dark- 
ness and weakness, my dangerous prejudices on every 
side, and my utter insufficiency for my own conduct? 
Wilt thou leave such a poor creature bewildered among 
a thousand perplexities, which are raised by the vai®ous 
opinions and contrivances of men to explain thy Divine 
truth ? } 

‘Help me, heavenly Father, for I am quite tired 
and weary of these human explainings, so various and 
uncertain. When wilt thou explain it to me thyself, 
O my God, by the secret and certain dictates of thy 
Spirit according to the intimations of thy word? Nor 
let any pride of reason, nor any affectation of novelty, 
nor any criminal bias whatsoever, turn my heart aside 
from hearkening to these Divine dictates of thy word 


286 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


and thy Spirit. Suffer not any of my native corrup- 
tions, nor the vanity of my imagination, to cast a mist 
over my eyes, while I am searching after the knowledge 
of thy mind and will, for my eternal salvation. 

‘“‘T entreat, O most merciful Father, that thou wilt 
not suffer the remnant of my short life to be wasted in 
such endless. wanderings, in quest of thee and thy Son 
Jesus, as a great part of my past days have been ; but 
let my sincere endeavors to know thee, in all the ways 
whereby thou hast discovered thyself in thy word, be 
crowned with such, abundant success, that my soul 
being established in every needful truth by thy Holy 
. Spirit, I may spend my remaining life according to the 
rules of thy Gospel, and may, with all the holy and 
happy creation, ascribe glory and honor, wisdom and 
power to Thee, who sittest upon the throne, ‘and to the 
Lamb forever and ever.” 


In this manner did that eminent servant of God pour 
out his whole heart over the subject. Rejecting the 
common theory with which his earlier devotional feel- 
ings had been associated, he was evidently often dis- 
tressed ; partly from his own theory not being perfectly 
satisfactory to himself, and partly from the opposition 
which he knew his recent course and present views 
would meet with—which in fact they did meet with— 
from pious friends whom he respected and loved. 
From some of the views which he has elsewhere ex- 
pressed, he seems to have had a glimpse of that simple 
view of the subject which the Bible gives without any 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 287 


theory ; but some theory, as a mode of explanation, 
was deemed necessary, and was in accordance with 
previous habits, and with the spirit of the age. 

As his piety was above suspicion, some persons have 
ascribed the Doctor’s change of views on this subject, 
to insanity or imbecility. But such an explication of 
the matter, however good the motive may be in sug- 
gesting it, does no honor to religion. His personal 
friend, Dr. Gibbons, in reference to this very point, 
makes the following statement : 

“* How it came to pass I know not, but that it has so 
‘happened is certain, that reports have been raised, 
propagated, and currently believed concerning the Doc- 
tor, that he has imagined such things concerning him- 
self as would prove, if they were true, that he had lost 
possession of himself, or suffered a. momentary eclipse 
of his intellectual faculties; and I could refer my 
reader to a biographer who gives the world a grave 
narrative of the particulars of these wild reveries. 
But I take upon me, and feel myself happy to aver, 
that these reports were utterly and absolutely false and 
groundless ; and I do this from my own knowledge and 
observation of him for several years, and some of them 
the years of his decay, when he was at the weakest ; 
from the express declaration of Mr. Joseph Parker, his 
amanuensis for above twenty years, and who was in a 
manner ever with him; and, above all, from Mrs. 
Elizabeth Abney, the surviving daughter of Sir Thomas _ 
and Lady Abney, who lived in the same family with 
him all the time of the Doctor’s residence there, a_ 


288 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 
period of no less than thirty-six years. Can any evi- 
dence be more convincing and decisive ?” 

Dr. Watts was a man whose intellect is not to be 
despised, nor his piety or sincerity to be doubted. 
What Christian child has not been piously instructed 
by him? What humble believer in Jesus has not com- 
muned with him, and offered praise to God in his lan- 
guage? We heard the venerable Dr. Griffin, with all 
the glowing ardor of his mind, say of him many years 
ago on the floor of the General Assembly at Philadel- 
phia,—particularly m reference to his Psalmody,— 
‘Mr. Moderator—there never was but one Watts ’” 
Dr. Johnson, a High Churchman, says of him, in his 
Lives of the Pocts: “‘ The truth is, that whatever he 
took in hand was, by his incessant solicitude for souls, 
converted to Theology. As’ piety predominated in his 
mind, it is diffused over his works ; under his direction 
it may be truly said, Theologia Philosophia ancillatur, 
philosophy is subservient to evangelical instruction ; it 
js difficult to read a page without learning, or at least 
wishing to be better. The attention is caught by indi- 
rect instruction, and he that sat down only to reason 1s 
on a sudden compelled to pray. + +++ +++ s 
He is at least one of the few poets with whom youth 
and ignorance may be safely pleased ;. and happy will 
be that reader whose mind is disposed, by his verses or 
his prose, to imitate him in all but his non-conformity, 
to copy his benevolence to man, and his reverence to 
God.” 

Yet, learned and pious, and eminent as Dr. Watts 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ‘289 


was for every virtue, such was the general state of 
feeling relative to the common or scholastic theory, at 
the time the foregoing Address was first published, 
that some of his friends, fearing it would greatly injure 
his popularity and influence, persuaded him to recall 
the edition,—which we are told consisted of only fifty 
copies, containing the Address prefixed to a treatise on 
the Trinity,—and commit it to the flames. What a 
fact this, in the history of that theory! This is the 
way in which it has come to pass, that “so the church 
has always understood the subject.?? But how does 
such a proceeding differ, in principle, from suppressing 
or burning Protestant books in Catholic countries? It 
is not Divine truih, but a scholastic theory, that will 
not bear the light. But, in the good providence of 
God, one copy of that work of Watts escaped the 
flames ; and half a century afterward, it was found in 
a bookstore at Southampton (1796); so that it can tell 
us of the workings of his inquisitive, anxious, humble 
and devout mind, on this great subject. . And it does 
tell us, that he was driven to the verge of infidelity ; 
from which, however, the grace of God—not that scho- 
lastic theory—preserved him. 

But many are afraid of ight on the subject, and are 
anxious to preserve this theory, lest men should become 
Unitarians or Infidels. This is just like the priestly 
method of preventing Catholics from becoming Pro- 
-testants. So long as they can be kept quiet, in the 
belief of the infallibility of the Pope and the au- 


thority of the Priest over the conscience, there is 
13 


290 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


no danger—they will ‘‘believe what the church be- 
lieves,”” and obey the Priest; but as soon as any of 
them begin to inquire, read, and think on the subject, 
and to dowbé of such infallibility and authority, they 
are at once considered—and not without reason—as © 
lost to that church, and are doomed accordingly. So 
it is with reference to scholastic views of the Trinity. 
The only way to retain them is, to keep people in the 
dark—merge the subject in ‘‘ awful mystery,” into 
which it is not lawful to inquire; and if any one should 
presume to do so, and to doubt of the correctness of 
such views, pronounce him at once “ guilty of contempt 
of authority,’’ and ‘‘ cast him out.”? But Baxter and 
Watts could hold the lwing truths of Christianity, 
without this scholastic theory, and bring them, in love 
and with power, to bear upon the conscience and the 
heart. Why cannot others do the same? What need 
has God’s truth of scholastic mystery to protect it or 
give it efficacy ? 

But the manner in which this theory has commonly 
been presented and defended, has had great influence 
in promoting skepticism and infidelity ; especially with 
those independent, thinking minds, who will not be re- 
strained from examining into the subject, and who 
must, without reserve, receive this theory, or be re- 
garded and treated as “‘heretics.”? A sensible writer 
in The New Englander for Feb. 1850, p. 18, refer- 
ring particularly to the Tritheistic form of this theory, 
says: 

‘This method of stating the doctrine of the Trinity 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 291 


is particularly unfortunate, since it not only leads the 
mind that adopts it into unnecessary confusion, and - 
even error, but by coming into direct and unavoidable 
collision with one of the plainest truths of revelation, 
the Divine unity, it brings the doctrine itself into dis- 
repute, and in many instances occasions its entire re- 
jection. Itisa sad fact, yet one with which he who 
ig conversant with the history of doctrines in the 
church is but too familiar, that in many cases, the 
Jirst sources of the error and essential heresy which 
have arisen in the world, to the no small detriment of 
truth and the human mind, are to be found in the inju- 
dicious and unreasonable statements and opinions of 
those who have held the very opposite extreme. Thus 
unquestionably has it been in the present instance. 
Not a few have been led to reject the Divinity of 
Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity in ¢oto [true in- 
deed ; and so Dr. Watts, in the Preface to some of his 
Dissertations, says it was in his day, and had been be- 
fore], as the only way of avoiding the really irrecon- 
cilable contradictions involved in the method of state- 
ment now under consideration. And this state of 
things must continue, so long as they who hold the 
doctrine allow themselves to use terms in this looge 
and incorrect manner ; applying to the distinctions in 
the Divine nature [?] the term Person in nearly or 
quite the ordinary sense of the word ; speaking and 
thinking of the Father, Son and Spirit, as if they were 
three distinct Beings, who together constitute the 
Deity, who consult together, and enjoy each other’s 


292, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


society and converse; thus virtually abandoning the 
doctrine of the simple undivided unity of the Godhead, 
and, when pressed with the conflicting nature of these 
two things, taking refuge as a last resort behind the 
broad shield of acknowledged MysTERY.”’ 

This is very well said, in the main. But the writer 
of it seems not yet to have wholly dispensed with the 
use of scholastic glasses. Those which he wears occa- 
sionally seem tinged a little with ‘‘ yellow;?’ while 
the other view, which he opposes, comes through the 
darkest ‘‘indigo.”? He holds the Monotheistic form 
of the common theory,—‘‘ distinctions in the Divine 
nature itself,’’—which is decidedly the least exception- 
able of the two; but still it goes beyond the record, 
and has, in some degree, the same effect of occasioning 
the rejection of important truths actually revealed, 
which he justly ascribes to the Tritheistic form which 
he opposes, and refutes. Butt he, too, ‘‘ takes refuge 
behind the broad shield of mystery.’? Let him look 
at the whole subject with the naked eye, and in the 
light of our common “‘ exegetical guide,” and he will 
doubtless see it as it is, clearly revealed. He will then 
have no need.of any other “ shield,” but that broader, 
safer shield of Divine truth. ~ 

The question may be asked : How it comes to pass, 
that such a multitude of believers have, for so many 
ages, received the common theory of the Trinity with 
confidence and joy as Divine verity, if it is not really 
taught in the Scriptures? The answer to this question 
has in part been given already, in what has been said 


® 
A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 993 


respecting the position, that ‘so the church has always 
understood the subject.’? Another reason is, that | 
their public teaching and Confessions of Faith have led 
them to believe-that this doctrine or theory of the 
Trinity, including “ the eternal generation of the Son”? 
and ‘‘ the eternal procession of the Spirit,’ is ‘* the 
foundation of all our communion with God, and com- 
fortable dependence upon him.”’* In other words ; it 
is because they have associated with that theory, all 
the great and glorious truths of redemption ; and 
THESE REVEALED TRUTHS,—n0t the distinction of Per- 
sons in the very nature of the Godhead, in itself con- 
‘ gidered,—have been the real subject of their confidence 
and joy. But that theory is not at all necessary, to 
the full and practical reception of these truths. Paul, 
Baxter, and Watts so received and taught them, and a 
multitude of devout and humble Christians have so re- 
ceived them, without that scholastic theory. A vastly 
greater multitude would doubtless have so received 
them openly, but for the cogent reasons which have 
been mentioned in the foregoing discussion. These 
blessed truths may, indeed, be presented in connection 
with that theory ; but without it, the same revealed 
truths appear far more plain, simple, natural, intelli- 
gible and scriptural, and comparatively free from per- 
plexing embarrassments and inextricable difficulties. 
In both ways of presenting the subject, God is repre- 
sented as having revealed himself to men as the Father, 


* Savoy Confession ; and adopted in Boston, 1680. 


6 7 9 
294. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Son, and Holy Ghost, and as acting in these several 
capacities and relations; and the Being so revealed, 
and designated by any one of these names, is claimed 
to be the Supreme God ; whether we include under i, 


the whole Godhead, scene to the teachings of the ~ 


Bible ; or only an unknown distinction or a distinct 
Person in the same, according to the teachings of a 
superannuated and presumptuous philosophy. 

No human language can adequately describe Him, 
whom we cannot find out by searching. In our imper- 
fect descriptions and illustrations, and in the names 
employed to designate him, we can only use the lan- 
guage of approximation. The name Father, applied to 

God, by no means denotes ald which is meant by that 
term, when applied to man. Were we to draw out its 
meaning, in the former case, in all the particulars 
which it denotes in the latter case, we should run into 
the most glaring absurdities. There are certain re- 
spects, in which it is appropriate; and certain other 
respects, in which it is wholly inappropriate. Bearing 
this in mind, we might furnish some explanation of 
what we mean, in saying that the true God viewed in 
three aspects and relations and acting in three different 
capacities is one and the same Jehovah, by taking one 
or two suggestive illustrations. 

That great moral and spiritual change which takes 
place when a man becomes a true believer in Jesus, is 
denominated regeneration, repentance, faith ; accord- 


a ale 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 295 


ing to its aspect and relation toward God as its author, 
toward sin as its subject, or toward Christ crucified as 
the object of trust. This whole change is often desig- 
nated by any one of these terms; though in different 
aspects and relations. If a person is truly regenerated 
by the Holy Spirit, he is a Christian. If he has truly 
repented of his sins, he is a Christian. If he has true 
faith in a crucified Savior, he is a Christian. So God, 
creating and governing the universe and making pro- 
vision for the salvation of men, is the true God. The 
same God manifested in the flesh, dwelling in the Mes- 
siah, and in or through him reconciling the world unto 
himself, is the Supreme God. The same unchange- 
able Jehovah graciously carrying on his plan of mercy, 
—converting and sanctifying men, watching over and 
protecting his church, and promoting her welfare in all 
_ ages of the world,—is the true and eternal God. But 
in these several cases, he is presented to us in different 
aspects and relations, and acts in different capacities 
(so much is true, even if this is not the whole truth) ; 
yet all in perfect consistency with one another, and 
with the great principles of his government. 

The Supreme Magistrate of the Commonwealth acts 
in very different capacities, when the public good re- 
quires it. In ordinary circumstances, he acts in a 
ciwil capacity in what he does with respect to the en- 
actment and execution of the laws. In a time of hos- 
tile invasion especially, he is called to act in a military 
capacity, suspending, if need be, certain civil rights of 
the citizens. Again, in the exercise of the pardoning 


296 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


power, he revokes the sentence of the law, instead of 
causing it or leaving it to be executed. These several 
capacities in which he acts are entirely consistent with 
each other and with the public good; nay, he is re- 
quired so to act for the common weal, on account of 
the occasions which called for the exercise of these 
diverse public functions. So likewise, the same Su- 
preme God acts in the several capacities ascribed to 
him in the Scriptures, in entire harmony with his goy- 
ernment, with the best interests of his great kingdom, 
and with the perfection of his whole character as Moral 
Governor of the universe. 

These illustrations are merely suggestive, and most 
obviously, not to be taken in every respect as explana- 
tory of what is revealed concerning God; any more 
than the name Father or King when applied to him, is 
to be understood as meaning the same, in all respécts, as 
when applied to a man: what is not revealed of God, 
we do not attempt to illustrate or explain at all. But, 
to set forth for argument or illustration— George 
Washington as Proprietor of Mount Vernon, address- 
ing a petition to George Washington as President of 
the United States, that he would send George Wash- 
ington as Military Commander to defend his estate 
from pillage’’*—to set forth this as a fair, or even 
plausible illustration of the foregoing Biblical view of 
the Trinity, would (whether so intended or not) be the 
very extreme of caricature and absurdity. What in- 


* Omicron in the N. Y. Evangelist. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 297 


telligent and candid reasoner ever represented God as 
sending himself—-and not rather his Son—to make 
atonement for sin? Who, that was not wedded to a 
troublesome theory, ever represented Him as offering a 
petition to himself, to sanctify men through his own 
truth and to take care of his church; and not rather, 
his Son the Messiah—the man Christ Jesus—as offer- 
ing such a petition to God his. Father? But it shows 
that the subject, thus unintentionally perverted and 
caricatured, is seen and perceived through a false 
medium, of the darkest hue. The foregoing alleged 
likeness resembles the original no more than a man of 
straw resembles a real son of Adam. It would be 
more honorable to deal with the original, the real 
man,—fairly to be sure,—than to demolish him of 
straw. | 

It is natural to inquire, whether the Trinity of the 
Scriptures is revealed in the Old Testament. ‘The 
sum and substance of it are there; though it is not 
revealed as clearly and fully, as in the New Testa- 
ment, after the incarnation ; and, from the very nature 
of the case, it was not to be expected, even if possible. 
In the former, God is revealed as creator and right- 
eous moral governor, and as having mercy in store for 
rebellious man; this is the Father. A Messiah to 
come, one to be offered up as a sacrifice for sin, is 
-fully set forth in the Mosaic ritual, and plainly referred 
to and foretold in the Psalms and in the Prophets; 
this is the Son by anticipation—the manifestation of 


God in the flesh. God operated on the hearts of men, 
13* 


298 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


and inclined them to himself; gave them a new heart 
and a new spirit; watched over, favored, and pro- 
tected his ancient church amid all her trials ;—this is 
the Holy Spirit. Here is, substantially, the Trinity 
as revealed in the New Testament. 

But these facts by no means prove that there are 
three Persons in the nature of the Godhead itself; as 
has before been shown. Much Jess do they prove the 
truth of the common theory of the Trinity so clearly, 
that it must have been understood by the whole He- 
brew nation, and that whcrever any of them went and 
whoever came among them from heathen nations, all 
carried away with them a full knowledge of this trinity 
of Persons in the Godhead; so that the doctrine took 
everywhere, spread over heathendom, and was incor- 
porated into all their systems of religion. Yet this has 
been often and strenuously maintained; and it has 
been regarded as unanswerable evidence, corroborating 
the truth of that theory. 

Now, it does not belong to any of us to account for 
the origin of all the fanciful forms of heathen idolatry, 
or else to admit the truth or probability of any theory 
which may claim support from the prevalence of such 
idolatry. If the common theory is not taught in the 
Scriptures ; and especially, if that form of idolatry 
which is claimed for its support, is directly contrary to 
one of the plainest truths set forth abundantly in the 
Book of God, and evidently designed to warn and guard 
us against the reception of more gods than one; then, 
we are not bound to account for its origin satisfactorily 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 299 


to those who hold the theory, or else to admit that it 
corroborates such a theory. The light of nature no 
more teaches tritheism, in any form, than it does poly- 
theism. Yet some theologians of a lively imagination, 
and others who have not examined the subject with due 
care, have thought they found the doctrine of the 
Trinity ‘‘ evidently received, without a question, in all 
the four quarters of the globe.” But the facts respect- 
ing heathen idolatry, in connection with other facts, 
only prove that there is, in the nature of man, a cer-— 
tain religious element, which inclines him to worship 
some God. The heathen have worshiped one Jupiter, 
the father of the gods and men, three gods, and any 
number up to ‘ thirty thousand gods ;”’ and almost any 
other number. We are told, that “the people of 
Thibet, who are worshipers of Buddha, acknowledge 
the following trinity, viz.: 1. The Supreme God; 2. 
The Divine Law; and 8. The created Universe.”’ 
How has all this come to pass? Plainly, because the 
heathen, prompted by the religious element in man and 
without Divine revelation, are led to worship more gods 
than one. It is exactly in keeping with heathen poly- 
theism, and pantheism. 

But the apostle Paul does not seem to have been 
acquainted with the prevalence among the heathen of 
any such great truth respecting God, at the time he 
- wrote his letter to the Romans; at least, he did not 
give them credit for it. He says of the Gentiles,— 
the heathen as a body,—that ‘‘ they did not like to 
retain God in their knowledge.”’ Yet here is one very 


300 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


important, yea, fundamental truth respecting him,—a 
trmity in some form,—which they did ‘retain in their: 
knowledge.”’ Though it was held in a corrupted form, 
yet, as held by some heathen philosophers, it was hardly 
more so, than the form in which it is held by some who 
have the Bible for their guide. ; 

But while this apostle did not recognize any such 
traditionary knowledge or philosophy as prevalent 
among the heathen, respecting God; yet, in the 
seventh chapter to the Romans, he does recognize the 
prevalent philosophy respecting the nature of man, and 
adapts himself to it, that he might turn it to good ac- 
_ count. Speaking of those opposite workings in man, 
which control the human conduct, he represents two 
distinct and conflicting agents as existing there, and 
Struggling for the mastery ; according to the prevalent 
philosophy. Cicero, who died but forty-three years be- 
fore the Christian era, says in reference to the constitu- 
tion of man: ‘‘ There is a two-fold energy of the mind, 
and of nature [the physical man]: one part is situ- 
ated in appetite, which in Greek is called égu4, which 
hurries the man hither and thither ; the other in rea- 
son, which teaches and shows what ought to be done, 
and what ought to be avoided. Hence it is, that rea- 
son should govern, and appetite obey.”’* Here Cicero 
evidently recognizes two conflicting principles or ms 


* Duplex est enim vis animorum, atque nature: una pars in appe- 
titu posita est, que est oni) Grace, que hominem huc et illuc rapit 
alter in ratione, que docet et explanat quid faciendum, fugiendum sit. 
Ita fit ut ratio presit, appetitus obtemperit. Cic. de Offic. L. I. 28. 


A BIBLICAL ‘TRINITY. 801° 


mm man ;, one put there to govern, the other to be gov- 
erned, but yet is clamorous to have the control. 

Nor was this philosophy peculiar to the Romans. 
We find it more distinctly stated by Xenophon (Cyrop. 
vi. 1), who represents Araspes, the Persian, as saying, 
in order to excuse his treasonable designs: ‘ Certainly I 
must have two souls, . . . . for itis not one and the same - 
which is both evil and good, . .. . and at the same 
time wishes to do a thing and not to doit. Plainly then 
I must have two souls ; and when the good one prevails, 
then it does good ; and when the evil one predominates, 
then it does evil.”’ Epictetus, too, a Stoic philoso- 
pher of Wierapolis in Phrygia, says in his Enchiridion 
(II. 26): “ He that sins, does not do what he would ; 
but what he would not, that he does.’ This is almost 
the same language which the apostle uses in his letter 
to the Romans (7 : 15-25): “‘ For that which I do, I 
allow [approve] not: for what I would, that do I not; 
but what I hate, that doI. For the good that I would, 
I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. 
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do 
it, but sin that dwelleth in me.’? The apostle here 
personifies sin (*} éuagste), pointing out the physical na- 
ture as its exciting cause, according to the prevalent 
philosophy ; as though it were a distinct agent—an- 
other self ; denoting by it, the impulses, passions and 
affections which lead men to sin. He goes on to say, 
in substance, that one of these agents, reason, justifies © 
and approves of the law of God; but that other agent, 
the physical man, which he calls ‘the flesh,’ is ever 


302 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


at war with its claims. Thus the contest goes on be- 
tween these two opposing agents in man, whether a 
Christian or not. In view of this ‘conflict in himself, 
the apostle exclaims: ‘‘ O wretched man that I am! 
Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?” 
How am I—how is man to obtain the victory? It is 
to be done, ‘‘I thank God, through” his grace in 
‘¢ Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind [the 
rational part] I myself [I the same person], serve the 
law of God ; but with the flesh [the physical part], the 
law of sin.’ Such is the use which he makes of the 
prevalent philosophy, presenting in accordance with it 
—in accordance with fact—most important truths, and 
showing: the superior excellence and power of the 
gospel. 

This apostle does the same thing in Gal. 5 : 16, et 
seq., as in the foregoing passage: “This I say then, 
Walk in the spirit [the mind, in Romans—according 
to the spiritual or rational part], and ye shall not 
fulfill the lust of the flesh [the other agent]. For the 
flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against 
the flesh ; and these are contrary the one to the other 
[the same conflict as before] : so that ye cannot do [so 
that ye do not] the things that ye would.” Here is a 
very striking resemblance to the passage in Romans ; 
but it is not to our purpose to dwell upon it. 

While the apostle adopts the prevalent philosophy 
respecting man, as teaching important truth, and thus 
turns it to good account; it does not appear that he 
makes any allusion whatever to a traditionary knowl- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 303° 


edge of the Divine Trinity, prevalent among the | 
heathen at that, or any other time. If it did really 
exist, it was a most important fact; and it is wholly 
unaccountable, that he should have taken no notice of 
it: for he might have used it to advantage ; according 
to an important principle upon which he acted—“ be- 
coming all things to all men, that by all means he 
might save some.”? He might have told the Gentiles, 
that they had a traditionary knowledge of that very 
Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, which was more 
clearly revealed in the gospel which he preached ; and 
he might have used it as a means of bringing them to a 
correct knowledge and reception of the truth. He did 
so, on other occasions. When he preached at Athens, 
certain persons encountered him, and accused him of 
being ‘‘a setter forth of strange gods: because he 
preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection?»—two 
“strange gods.’? He said to them: “ Ag I passed 
by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with 
this inscription; To THE UNKNOWN GoD. Whom, 
therefore, ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto 
you.” He quoted likewise from some of their own 
poets: “ For we are also his offspring.”? From these 
things which he found among them,—favoring his 
object,—he took occasion to preach the gospel to them, 
with plainness and fidelity; but he did not allude to 
any knowledge they had of the particular doctrine or 
theory in question. These things he did, in the very 
country and city of Plato; who held to a trinity 
not very different from that aed by some of the early 


804 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Christian fathers; yet, contrary to his usual practice 
in such favorable circumstances, the apostle took no 
notice of it. Writing to the Romans he says, indeed, 
that the heathen ‘are without excuse ;” because ‘* the 
invisible things of? God have been discoverable ever 
since the creation, “‘ by the things that are made, 
even his eternal power and Godhead.” But he says 
nothing of this sort, respecting a Trinity. 

There appears to be no valid evidence, that the idea 
of a Trinity of Persons in God was entertained. by the 
early Hebrews, as a doctrine which they had received 
from revelation. Prof. Knapp says that ‘‘ the learned 
Jews who lived beyond the bounds of Palestine,” had, 
a considerable time before the coming of Christ, ‘‘ im- 
bibed many of the principles of the philosophy prevail- 
ing in the regions where they resided.”’ But he says 
‘also, that ‘‘ these principles were wholly unknown to 
most of the Jews who lived within the bounds of Pales- 
tine during the lifetime of Christ, and afterwards. 
They were satisfied with their Pharisao-rabbinic the- 
ology, and looked for the Messiah as a religious re- 
former, and a temporal king. ...... It is among 
these learned Jews out of Palestine that the theory of 
the Logos is found as early as the first century. .... 
These opinions, derived partly from Grecian philoso- 
phy, and partly from Jewish and Christian theology, 
grew gradually in favor with the more learned Chris- 
tians ; they were variously developed and modified by 
the different parties of the early Christian church ; 
until at length, in the fourth century [about the time 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 805 


when the Nicene Creed was adopted], one party ob- 
tained ascendency for its own peculiar theory and 
phraseology, to the exclusion of all the rest.’’* 

The early Hebrews, then, and the Jews of Palestine 
did not find the common theory in the Old Testament ; 
‘the devout Watts’? could not find it, “in a single 
text ;”’ but Plato and the early Christian fathers did 
find it—somewhere. We conclude, therefore, that the 
heathen did not derive their tritheistic notions originally 
from ancient revelation ; but that the commén theory 
—not the Trinity of the Scriptures—was derived from 
heathen philosophy. | 

This conclusion is confirmed, by the views expressed 
by some of the early Christian fathers. One of them, 
Justin Martyr, who was born in Flavia Neapolis, 
anciently Sychem a city of Samaria, about A. D. 90, 
was a Platonist until he was more than forty years of 
age. Of course, he lived about ten years during the 
lifetime of the apostle John. He became a Christian 
in the year 132. It was natural that he should carry 
some of his Platonic notions into Christianity, as the 
foreign learned Jews did, into Judaism. This he ac- 
cordingly did. He says: “* Those good men who lived 
_ before Jesus Christ, were in their circumstances Chris- 
tians ; for all men who lived according to the seed of 
the Logos, lived rationally ; but, as the universal 
Logos is the same with Christ, they lived in a Chris- 
tian manner, and are not unworthy of the name of 


* Theology, pp. 146-7. 


306 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


Christian. Such were Socrates and Heraclites among 
the Greeks ; Abraham and others among the Jews.” 
Justin went to Rome in the beginning of the reign 
of Antoninus Pius; and suffered martyrdom in the 
year 164, in the seventy-fourth or seventy-fifth year 
of his age. | 

Tertullian, who was born at Carthage about the 
middle of the second century, says, that ‘‘ God was 
before all alone; being both world and place and 
everything to himself. Alone, because there is nothing 
exterior to him, and yet not indeed alone, because he 
had in himself his Reason: for God is rational, and 
reason was first in him, and this reason is his sensa- 
tion. The Greeks term it Logos, which we translate 
Word, and thus our people, for brevity’s sake, say, 
“In the beginning the Word was with God;’ though 
it would be more proper fo say Reason, since God was 
not speaking from the beginning ; although rational : 
and this he was, even before the beginning; for the 
very word spoken, consisting of reason, shows the prior 
existence of this latter.’’ 

Lartantius, supposed to have been an African, lived 
in Nicomedia, in the time of Constantine, and died 
about the year 325. He says: ‘‘ The Word is called 
Logos by the Greeks ; and this term is more appropri- 
ate than ours, because it signifies Reason, as well as 
Word. Now the Son of God is the Reason and Wis- 
dom of his Father, as well as his word. This Divine 
Word has not been altogether unknown to the philoso- 
phers who knew nothing of Christianity. Zeno says 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 307 


that it created the universe, and ranged the parts 
which compose it in due order.”? 

Augustin was born at Tagaste in Africa, in 354, 
hecame bishop of Hyppo in 395, and died in 403. He 
says: “ We believe, we maintain, we teach, as a dogma 
of our faith, that the Father has begotten the Word ; 
that is to say, his Wisdom, the creator of all things.” 
Again: ** Now that which is affirmed of him without 
relation to another, is that which he has. Thus, as 
life in itself, and without relation, is affirmed of him, 
he is the Life itself which he has.” 

Who can doubt that the early Christian fathers de- ~ 
rived their notions respecting the Trinity from heathen 
philosophy,—with which they correspond,—according 
to the custom of the age, both among Jews and Chris- 
tians ; especially as some of them entertained similar 
views of God, before their conversion to Christianity, 
and regarded some of those philosophers who lived be- 
fore Christ, as Christians? And yet their views are 
to be taken as Divine truth / 

But why call this a Biblical Trinity ? The general 
reason is implied, in what has already been said on the 
foregoing pages. More particularly it 1s, 

1. Because it presents the simple view which the 
Bible gives us of the one Jehovah, revealed as the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Spirit, without any metaphysical 
theory as to the mode of his existence. 

2. Because it maintains that the view which the 
Bible gives us, presents -all that we know respecting 
God as revealed to man,—gsave what his works re- 


3808 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


veal,—and that his own testimony in the case furnish- 
es sufficient evidence of the supreme Divinity of the 
Son and Spirit, independently of any human theory. 

38. It is called a Biblical Trinity, in distinction from 
a Scholastic Trinity ; which claims the philosophy of 
the schools on this subject as a part of that which is 
to be received as Divine truth, and so far binding upon 
the conscience as to render its reception necessary, in 
order to an equal share in the charity and fellowship 
of the brotherhood. 

Though this Biblical Trinity does not contain the 
common theory, yet to say that it lacks the revealed 
doctrine of the Trinity, would be speaking falsely. So 
much as is here set forth as revealed, is contained in 
the Scriptures ; even if more is revealed there. It in- 
cludes all which the common theory is mainly designed 
to establish and defend ; viz., the supreme Divinity of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Biblical Trinita- 
rlans maintain these revealed truths ; but they stop 
short of holding any theory as necessary to reconcile 
and defend them. Scholastic Trinitarians hold the 
same truths, more or less modified by scholastic the- 
ories and antique phraseology unwarrantably assumed 
as the only proper costume in which these truths have 
a right to appear, or be received. Biblical Trinita- 
rians, on the other hand, do not believe that the early 
Christian fathers—worthy and venerable men in their 
day—were Divinely authorized to do all the thinking 
for the church down to the end of time, and to pre- 
scribe the only proper forms of language in which to 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. | 


present Divine truth ; but they hold it to be the right 
and duty of every man to examine the Scriptures for 
himself, with the best helps he can obtain, and to re- 
ceive as Divine truth whatever he finds there revealed ; 
allowing all others to enjoy the same sacred birth. 
right. 

Nor does a Biblical Trinity, as set forth on the pre- 
ceding pages, “‘ Jean?’ toward this or that ism ;—as 
some, who are not much given to thinking for them- 
selves, and hence cannnot or do not discriminate, are 
apt to say, in order to cast opprobrium upon that which 
they would gladly disprove if they could ;—but it 
stands erect, ‘“ fast by the oracles of God,’’ and should 
be received just as ir is, without having some repul- 
sive image and superscription (which never mean any- 
thing) placed over it, as an invidious interpreter. If 
it is what it claims to be,—a fair representation of the 
doctrine as revealed in the Scriptures,—whatever meta- 
physical theory it may lack, it is properly denominated 
a Biblical Trinity. 

Should we, then, continue to use the language com- 
monly employed in writing and speaking on the sub- 
ject? Just so far as that language conveniently, cor- 
rectly, and properly expresses the truths revealed and 
the thoughts we wish to communicate respecting it, 
without attempting thereby to teach what God has not 
revealed concerning himself. But much of the lan- 
guage formerly employed in the schools, and in- the - 
ancient formulas of faith still received ‘ for substance 
of doctrine,”’ goes, in its true and proper meaning, far 


310 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


beyond the record. There are very many who do not 
use all the language of the schools,—such as that re- 
specting eternal generation, eternal procession, and the 
like,—who yet contend earnestly that they are “‘ The 
Orthodox.’? They are so, if holding more than the 
Bible reveals, gives them a just title to that name. 
But if the Athanasian Creed, and not the Bible, be 
the only true standard of Orthodoxy; then—to adopt 
the language of one of their own number, who used it in 
application to a brother who did not hold his view of 
“‘yeal, substantial, eternal distinctions in the one un- 
divided essence of the Godhead’’—they are “ only 
semt-Orthodox.’? .To be regarded by some men as 
being ‘* Orthodox,”’ is of much less importance than—- 
in the exercise of that charity which the gospel requires 
toward those who entertain different views of Divine 
truth from our own—to receive and hold the truth as 
at is revealed, and therefore, as God approves. 

The Rey. John Robinson, of Leyden, in taking 
leave of those of his Pilgrim congregation who were 
about to embark for the wilds of America, gave them, 
among other excellent counsels, the following salutary 
advice: ‘‘I must also advise you to abandon, avoid, 


and shake off the name of Brownists ; it is a mere. 


nick-name, and a brand for making religion, and the 
professors of it, odious to the Christian world.’?* 
The sooner Christians generally imbibe the spirit of 
this wholesome advice, and act in accordance with it, 


* Neal’s Hist. of Purit., Am. ed. 8vo., 1817, v. 2, p. 147. 


ee ee OS ee ee ee ee ee 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 311 


the better will it be for the cause of truth and religion 
in the world. | 

But the doctrine of the Trinity is claimed to be a 
mystery, which is to be received submissively, in some 
form of the common theory, and into which it is not 
lawful to inquire. One writer has remarked, that “ it 
is a staggering mystery, how three Persons can be one 
God; but it stands propounded in the Bible [not quite 
SO ae and it will be no less a mystery, though we 
reason and dispute about it to all eternity.”? This 
latter statement is strictly true, if, with our present’ 
capacities and present knowledge on the subject, the 
common theory is to be defended so long. That theory 
as a mystery, unfathomable as the abyss; but it is a 
mystery of man’s own creating. Not the Bible, but 
human philosophy is responsible for it. - They who in- 
troduced it into Christian Theology, and they who have 
received and carried out that false philosophy, in all 
_ its sad results to the peace of the church and to the 
lives and the souls of men, contrary to the spirit and 
the principles of the Gospel,—are responsible for what 
they have done. Many have received and held it, in 
ignorance of its real origin, character and tendencies, 
“knowing no better way to explain it,”’ and supposing 
the truths actually revealed in the Scriptures could not 
be rightly understood or sustained without it; many, 
because they have been always taught it, and because 
it has been associated in their minds with precious re- 
vealed truths which they have cherished as the life of 
their souls ; and many, because they preferred to hold 


312 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


it in silence as a mystery, rather than incur such op- 
_ probrium and such a breaking up of connections long 
held dear, as they think would inevitably result from 
openly rejecting a mere theory, which they regard as 
inconsistent, or absurd. 

But the doctrine of the Trinity, as taught in the 
Scriptures, is no more mysterious than a great many 
other truths which are plainly revealed there. What 
is actually revealed respecting it, God, who revealed it 
with a perfect knowledge of man’s powers of compre- 
hension, meant he should understand. It would be re- 
proaching him to say otherwise. An alleged fact, or 
anything acknowledged as truth, is either mysterious or 
absurd, which apparently contradicts another acknowl- 
edged fact, or another known truth. But simple igno- 
rance of a relative truth or fact, is not sufficient to 
constitute a mystery. A man may be ignorant whether 
Athens is in Greece or Italy, and of the time when the 
Nicene Council assembled ; but either of them may be 
easily ascertained, and is no mystery 5 it is a case of 
simple ignorance. But if it should be claimed, on good 
‘and sufficient authority, that a‘ton of iron rested in the 
air for some hours, fifty feet from the earth,—contrary 
to the principle or known law of gravitation, and with- 
out any known cause of the phenomenon,—here would 
be a mystery ; which can be explained only by proving 
(or at least assuming) a miracle ; otherwise, it 1s a 
plain absurdity. 

It is revealed, and therefore a known truth, that 
there is but one God. Now, af it were plainly re- 


‘A BIBLICAL TRINITY. es) i 


vealed in the Scriptures, that there are three eternal 
and personal Distinctions, or three Persons, in the — 
nature of this one God,—“ three distinct and compe- 
tent moral agents” so “ united in one substratum’? as 
to constitute one Being—one God; here would be a 
mystery ; i. e. “something incomprehensible or unin- 
telligible’’—something, according to the common sense 
of men, contradictory to a plain, known truth. In 
such case, we could say with Dr. Watts, that “we 
would subdue all our curiosity to faith, and submit our 
wandering and doubtful imaginations, as far as it was 
possible, to the holy and wise determinations of God’s 
word,” without any attempt at explanation; for, that 
which is not revealed concerning God, man cannot re- 
veal, or explain. But if it is not so revealed, and if 
what zs revealed (understood in a more-simple and 
natural way), is consistent with known truth, and quite 
intelligible—as much so as revealed truths in general, 
then the doctrine or statement of such Distinctions or 
Persons in the nature of God, is not a mystery, but a 
_ plain absurdity. Should it be claimed that the theory 
in question is a fair inference from what is revealed - 
then, if the inference be revealed, the alleged truth is 
revealed ; but if not revealed. then it rests on mere 
human authority. oh ee 

But the Scripture sense of the word mystery, is 
different from the common one. Campbell remarks, 
in his Dissertation on Mystery, “that this (the Serip- 
ture sense} is totally different from the current sense 


of the English word mystery—something incompre- 
14 : 


314 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


} 


hensible.”’* He further says: ‘I can only find two 
senses, nearly related to each other, which can strictly 
be called scriptural.. The first, and what I may call 
the leading sense of the word, is arcanum, a secret, 
anything not disclosed, not published to the world, 
though perhaps communicated to a select number.” 
This is that “‘mystery,’? of which Paul says he 
wag made a minister,’’—‘‘ which in other ages was 
not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now 
revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the 
Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and 
of the same body, and partakers of his promise in 
Christ by the gospel.””—(Eph. 3: 8-9). Till re- 
vealed, these truths were “‘ the wnsearchable riches of 
Christ ;”? but when made known by this apostle and 
others, they were to be searched into, and understood. 

As to the other scriptural meaning of mystery, 
Campbell remarks: “‘ The word is sometimes em- 
ployed to denote the figurative sense, as distinguished 
from the literal, which is conveyed under any fable, 
parable, allegory, symbolical action, representation, 
dream or vision. ... . ‘To you it is given to know 
the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to them that 
are without, all these things are done in parables.’— 
(Mark 4:11). The Apostles were let into the secret, 
and got the spiritual sense of the similitude, whilst 
the multitude amused themselves with the letter, and 
searched no further.”’ 


%* So Barnes, on Eph. 1: 9. | 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 815 


Respecting the passage in 1 Tim. 8 : 16,—“‘ the 
great mystery of godliness,’’—the same author justly. 
observes, that “the purport of the sentence plainly is, 
‘ Great unquestionably is the Divine secret, of which 
our religion brings the discovery ; God was manifest in 
the flesh,’ ’? &c. 

The word mystery is not, in the Scriptures, applied 
to the subject of the Trinity, nor is “the current 
sense” of the word to be found there; at least, in the 
New Testament. This doctrine, as revealed in the 
Bible, is no more mysterious than many other truths 
revealed there, and which were evidently intended to 
be understood. But scholastic philosophy often makes 
mystery of truths which are plainly revealed ; or rather, 
converts them into an absurdity. For example: It is 
clearly revealed, as well as a dictate of common sense, 
that man is both free and dependent—truths easily 
understood. But these truths are converted into a 
mystery, by that philosophy which makes him free and 
dependent in the same particulars. We have been 
told that a clergyman, many years ago, made the fol- 
lowing statement on this subject: ‘ that nothing can 
be free in that particular in which it is dependent ; 
or, dependent in that particular in which it is free ;— 
any more than black can be white in that particular in 
which it is black; or, than white can be black in that 
particular in which it is white.”? This is plain, com- 
mon-sense truth ; and when understood, it seems to be 
self-evident. The mystery, therefore, claimed to be 
constituted by the coéxistence of human freedom and 


816 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


dependence in the same particular, is not a mystery, 
but a plain absurdity; made such, by scholastic philo- 
sophy. In like manner, to claim that three distinct 
and competent human agents are but one man, and 
three distinct and competent Divine agents are but one 
God, are alike contradictory; and, if not so revealed, 
then plainly absurd. 

All which is needful for man to know concerning 
God, in order that he may understand and do his duty 
and be supremely happy, is intelligibly revealed. It 
would be casting reproach on his Maker to affirm it to 
be otherwise. What, therefore, is not revealed, is not 
thus needful ; and no cloud of mystery thrown over any 
part of revelation by the inventions of men, how- 
ever well intended, does any service to man or honor to 
God. If a knowledge of three Persons in the nature 
of God were needful for us, common sense decides that 
the God of the Bible would have revealed it so clearly, 
that it would not then have resulted, as the common 
theory has done from the first, in endless contention 
among his own people ; thus invading the peace of the 
church, and doing great dishonor to religion. As he 
has not so revealed it in his word, it becomes us all to 
leave the subject where God has left it. 

On the subject of Creeds, we have but a few words 
to say. Properly constructed, they are good and im- 
portant in their place; but as they are, in themselves 
considered, of mere human authority, they cannot, 
without gross usurpation, be put in the place of the 
Bible. The following language of Prof. Stuart, sup- 


ee eee a 


_ 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. B17 


posed to express the views of the great body of believ- 
ers, 1s very much to the purpose: “ First of all, we do - 
sincerely believe in the great Protestant maxim, that THE 
SCRIPTURES ARE THE SUFFICIENT AND ONLY RULE OF 
FAITH AND PRACTICE. We do not regard them as 
secondary and inferior, or a mere supplementary edi- 
tion of the laws of nature. What they reveal, we take 
as our creed, our only creed.”’* This is as it should 
be. But if so, then a human Creed, to be received by 
the brotherhood, should contain only what the Scrip- 
tures reveal ; leaving to those who are’ to receive and 
adopt it as their own, that right of private judgment as 
to the mode of explaining revealed truth and those 
rights of conscience, which God has given alike to all— 
to one as much as to another. Nor has scholastic phi- 
losophy a Divine right to a place in the common Creed 
of any brotherhood; nor has any human authority a 
right to put it there, and then treat the subject as if it 
were binding upon the conscience. The final appeal 
should be made, not to the Creed into which that phi- 
losophy has been so wrought as to become a part of its 
texture; but to the Holy Scriptures. Some may 
think that philosophy, as a method of explanation and 
defense of revealed truth, is in accordance with the 
word of God. Others think differently ; and one has 
the right of private judgment in the case, as much as 
another. The appeal should therefore be made, as the 
last resort,—not to what has been “ commonly re- 


* Miscellanies, p. 346. 


318 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


ceived,”’? or “always so understood,’’ but—to’ the 
Brste. For, the human mind is at least as well quali- 
fied now to understand and interpret that holy book, as 
it was fifteen hundred years ago. 

Some persons may think that this would set every- 
thing afloat, and may consider it a matter of rejoicing 
that there is ‘one church’? which has “a fixed 
Creed ;”? even though that Creed embodies much an- 
tique philosophy which has for centuries been enforced 
by civil and ecclesiastical power, and such assumption 
of ‘‘ Divine right,’ as naturally excludes the great 
body of believers from the fellowship of the Christian 
brotherhood. There is, however, no fixed creed but 
the Bible. Human creeds have changed, as often as 
“Cevery moon:?? Many things which the fathers hon- 
estly received and held as the truth, have long since 
been set afloat ; and others will doubtless follow them. 
The best way to have a fixed human Creed, is, to 
embody, in simple language, no more than the Scrip- 
tures plainly reveal. 

But our business at present is with the doctrine 
under consideration. What language, then, will ex- 
press simply what the Scriptures reveal on the subject 
of the Trinity ? ‘A Descendant of the Pilgrims” 
has given us an article on this subject, which, he 
says, some of the churches in the land of the “ first 
comers,”? have used for “these hundred years ;”’ and 
which they profess that “* they believe, without at- 
tempting to explain :””—“ God is revealed in the Scrip- 
tures as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to each 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 319 


is attributable the same Divine properties and perfec- 
tions.”’* This is well expressed, in the main ; and it 
keeps clear of that philosophy which we have seen in- 
troduced into an article on the same subject, in another 
Confession of Faith ; and.which runs thus: “‘ We be- 
lieve that there is in the nature of God, a foundation 
laid for the distinction of three Persons, the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost.”?? Who was ever Divinely au- 
thorized to introduce such philosophy—the result of 
dialectic subtilty—into a Confession of Faith to be re- 
ceived and adopted by plain, common-sense men as 
revealed truth, or else to be themselves excluded from 
the communion and fellowship of a Christian church ? 
When will theorizers in theology, and they who use 
what is already prepared to their hands, in forming a 
Confession of Faith for the common reception of the 
brotherhood, learn not to put into it that of which they 
know nothing,—thus requiring assent to what is not. 
revealed as truth,—but to keep themselves strictly 
WITHIN the boundaries of human knowledge ? 

On this topic we would only add, in the language of 
another : ‘‘ Our belief is that the churches must go 
back, and make more of the Binur, and less of Creeds, 
in order to revive the spirit of the primitive ages of 
Christianity. When they shall be as anxious to pro- 
mote brotherly harmony, and kindness, and true liber- 
_ality, as they have for a long time been to inflame sec- 
tarian zeal, and increase the causes of dissension by 


* The Independent, Feb. 21, 1850, p. 1. 


320 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


sectarian creeds, and to treat with severity and con-: 
tempt or reproach those who differ from them in mat- 
ters unessential ; then will the world once more be 
‘constrained to say : See how these Christians love one 
another ! ‘Then, to use the last words of the adorable 
Savior, ‘ will they all be one ;’ and then (but not till 
then) ‘ will the world believe that Christ is sent by the 
Father.’ ??* 

We come now to inquire: How they who honestly 
entertain different views of revealed truth, should treat 
each other, on the ground of that difference? and, 
How far the exhibition of a life becoming the gospel, 
on the part of those who thus differ, should affect their 
judgment and treatment of each other, as Christians 
or as the ministers of Christ? These are practical 
questions of serious import; for, the cause of truth, 
the honor of religion, and the salvation of men, are 
deeply concerned in the matter. We cannot, however, 
go into extended remarks on the subject, but must be 
as brief as possible ; leaving a more full discussion of 
it, to others. 

It is worthy of special consideration, that they who 
hold any part of scholasticism as essential to revealed 
truth, are apt to be less charitable toward their breth- 
ren who reject the part which they still reéain, than 
they are toward those who pertinaciously hold that 
part of it which they themselves regard as erroneous, 
and of injurious tendency ; the more scholastic, being 


* Stuart’s Miscell., p. 75. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 321 


most intolerant toward those who are /ess so than them- 
selves. ‘This shows the bad influence of regarding hu- 
man philosophy as essential to Divine truth—either ag 
a part of it, or as necessary to its defense. It is a fact 
which has often arrested the attention of the men of the 
world, that Christian denominations—even brethren of 
the same denomination—whose difference of opinion is 
comparatively small, frequently seem to be the most 
warmly opposed to each other. Doubtless the ob- 
servation of such facts as these gave occasion for the 
remark of an eminent statesman of England, that 
‘“‘The opposition of Christian sects to each other is 
inversely as the squares of their distances.?? This 
remark is but too often verified. ‘‘ When the Swiss 
reformers as the Conference of Marbourg sued for 
peace and union, Luther repelled them. ..... 

When the English exiles fled from the bloody oortes 
‘of Mary, they were, at the instigation of Lutheran 
theologians, repulsed in mid-winter from Copenhagen, 
Rostoch, Lubec and Hamburg, where they sought an 
asylum ; with a—‘rather a Papist than a Calvinist.? 
The Lutherans were wont to call their cats and dogs 
by the name of Calvin.””* . But we need not go so far 
back, or so far off, in order to find the same bigoted in- 
tolerance attempting to sustain itself by the excision of 
a large portion of the church,—men who presumed to 
.think and interpret the Scriptures for themselves ; or 
by the cry of heresy, uttered in every variety of form,— 


* N. E. Puritan, April 9, 1846, 
1 ae 


822 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


remonstrance, public testimony, accusation, prosecu- 
tion,—instead of Scripture argument and brotherly 
love. Protestations of harboring no i// will against the 
accused, and of painful regret in feeling themselves 
called upon to take such a position, only make the 
matter worse. ‘* Ye know not what spirit ye are of.” 
The drapery is too thin to conceal the nakedness be- 
neath it. 

They who honestly entertain different views of re- 
vealed truth, so long as they hold that truth itself (not 
scholasticism or infidelity in its stead), and exhibit a 
- life conformed to the gospel, should not be visited with 
any ecclesiastical or fraternal disabilities. Otherwise, 
it becomes bigotry and wrong doing, employed to pro- 
mote what is claimed to be the cause of truth and 
righteousness. But real truth and righteousness need 
no such helpers. Do you say, it is not oppression, be- 
cause they are at perfect liberty to do as they please, 
and you do as you please and feel bound to do? But 
theirs is only ‘‘ the liberty of necessity.”? So Arch- 
bishop Cranmer had perfect liberty to do as he pleased 
—either to recant, or to be burnt. He first chose the 
former, and then the latter. The definition of liberty 
given by Sir James Mackintosh, against which we have 
seen no valid objection made, is this: ‘* Liberty con- 
sists In security against wrong.”? Have they, who are 
thus prevented from enjoying the common privileges of 
the brotherhood and from serving Christ as they desire 
to do, “‘securttyagainst wrong ??’ The wrong is actu- 
ally perpetrated, by the very means which are em- 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 593 


ployed to maintain scholastic views of Bible truth. 
Our Lord and Master has not authorized us to reject 
any one who receives Jesus of Nazareth as the true 
Messiah, and follows him. If there is found in him 
“some good thing toward the Lord God of Israel?? 
and toward his Son Jesus, let us not “ forbid him”? 
a place in the church or in the pulpit, “because he 
followeth not with us;’? but rather welcome him in 
either place,—according to what he is,—as a brother 
in Christ. 

What minister of the word is authorized by his Mas- 
ter, to close his pulpit against his brother, because he 
does not receive scholasticism into his creed ; and then 
stand forth on the platform, and plead, in glowing elo- 
quence, for “ Christian Union’? among all who love 
our Lord Jesus Christ: including among them, very 
many who still hold those scholastic views of truth, 
which a large portion of intelligent, humble, and de- 
voted Christians have long since discarded, and which 
he himself rejects. It needs more than a microscopic 
eye, to see the consistency of such doings. ‘“‘ But why 
dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou set at 
naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the 
judgment seat of Christ.”? The question then will not 
be, whether, in this world, we held the scholastic 
views of truth, or rejected them: whether, by the wise 
ones, we were called orthodoz, or heterodox ; but more 
probably, whether we loved the Lord Jesus Christ in 
sincerity, and walked humbly before God ; and whether, 
in obedience to our Master, we habitually exercised due 


324 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


charity toward the whole brotherhood of believers, and 
were conscientiously and faithfully engaged with the 
requisite self-denial, in “‘ doing the will of our Father 
who is in heaven.’? Doubtless many things of absorb- 
ing interest here,—many which now engross the ener- 
gies of the church and rend asunder “the body of 
Christ,”’ to the grief of his friends and the joy of his 
enemies,—will then be seen to have been the offspring 
of human ignorance and unsanctified zeal, and worth- 
less as a bubble. 

Opposite parties in religion have for centuries ren- 
dered their respective names as odious to each other, 
by their assumptions and uncharitableness, as Robin- 
son says those did, ‘‘to the Christian world,’’ who 
cherished the name of ‘‘ Brownists,”’ in the days of the 
Pilgrims. It is time that all—of whatever name—who 
have departed from the plain, simple teachings of reve- 
lation,—whether to the right hand or to the left,—and 
have been guided by the darkness of scholasticism, or 
the pride of reasoning, and thus provoked each the 
other to make the retort of Job. to his friends, ‘‘ No 
doubt ye are the people,’ should. get back to the 
Scriptures of truth. Among the various opinions 
which have been formed of Divine truth, whether 
they who have held more or they who have held less 
than the Scriptures reveal, are most in the wrong, is 
a question not of the first importancé; but rather, 
how to get back, as soon as possible—whatever the 
distance to be passed over may be—to the line of truth 
and charity marked out by the Bible. This would 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 325 


doubtless be a lesson of humility to all parties ; yet 
one which it would do them no injury to learn prac- 
tically ; but on the cohtrary, it would have a salutary 
influence upon all who shall prove to be faithful disci- 
ples, and upon the cause of truth and piety ; as well as 
be honorable to God and the gospel of his Son. They 
need not lay aside all distinctive names ; nor should | 
they judge each other by classes 3 but let each indi- 
vidual be regarded, by all the rest, according to his 
own belief and practice, rather than the merit or de- 
merit of a name, or a class. Casting the blame on one 
another, and using names offensively, will not promote 
the truth as it is in Jesus, nor exemplify true piety or 
godlike charity. They may have names, for con- 
venience sake, and use them as names, without assum- 
ing that any name includes all the truth or all the 
liberality in the Christian world ; not using them for 
purposes of caste, like the mutually odious names of 
rival parties in politics : but, on the contrary, let their 
names be used like those of The Bible Society, and 
The Missionary Soctety—significant, convenient, and 
alike honorable, because of the principles embodied and 
the work done, for the cause of our glorious Redeemer. 
When these things shall be exemplified before earth 
and heaven, by all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, 
then will they, as one body, and in their several de- 
nominations, present to the world the beauty and the 
harmony of truth and love, as imaged forth concerning 
the above-named Societies in the following expressive 
language of the poet Montgomery : | 


3826 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


“In the Bible Society all names and distinctions of 
sect are blended till they are lost, like the prismatic 
colors in a ray of pure and perfect light. In the Mis- 
sionary work, though divided, they are not discordant ; 
but, like the same colorss displayed and harmonious in 
the rainbow, they form an arch of glory—ascending on 
the one hand from earth to heaven, and on the other 
descending from heaven to earth—a bow of promise, a 
covenant of peace, a sign that the storm is passing 
away, and the Sun of righteousness, with healing in his 
wings, breaking forth on all nations.” 


CH APP ER Ars 


~ 


CONCLUSION. 


Havine thus treated of the various matters which 
have come before us, let us now consider the natural 
result to which the foregoing examination brings us— 
the conclusion of the whole matter. In so doing, we 
will inquire; What is the difference between the 
Trinity of the Scriptures and the common theory of 
the Trinity ? 

The former of these makes Known to us the one 
only living and true God,—the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost,—revealed to man in different capacities and re- 
lations for the work of redemption. Whether revealed 
as the Father, as God in Christ, or as the Holy Spirit, 
he is the same unchangeable Jehovah. By whatever 
terms, or combination of terms, the Supreme Being is 
on any occasion designated, he is one and the same 
God,—though manifesting himself variously, according 
to the various exigencies to be provided for,—and all- 
sufficient for every work needful and proper to be done; 
whether a work actually performed by his own direct 
and gracious agency, or by his Son, or by any created 


328 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


beings whom he sees fit to employ in carrying on and 
carrying out the purposes of his grace. This God, 
“the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,’’ is that Divine 
Being who performs all Divine works whatsoever. It 
is He who “ dwelleth” in the Son (whether called the 
Son of man or Son of God—the Messiah), and who 
*doeth the work”? by or through him: “for there is 
one God, and one mediator between God and men, the 
man Christ Jesus ;’? and “ there is none other God but 
one.’’? This is the God of the Bible—the Godhead as 
revealed to man. From this revelation are derived all 
the great and glorious truths of redemption by Jesus 
Christ—a work on which depends the salvation of men 
—a work for which, as one great end, all things were 
made—a work which reflects the highest glory of the 
eternal God, to the everlasting admiration of the intel- 
ligent universe. 

The common theory of the Trinity, in both its forms, 
superadds to what is plainly revealed, the inventions 
of men, for the truth; yet honestly intended to ex- 
plain—as God has not seen fit to do—what is left un- 
revealed ; and what, therefore, cannot be necessary for 
man to know or believe in order that he may do his 
duty, and obtain everlasting life. This has been 
thought to be necessary in order to defend the truth 
actually revealed, from the assaults of error; as though 
God’s own word—the truth itself uttered on his au- 
thority—could not ‘‘ stand’? and prevail, without ‘“‘ the 
wisdom of men’ to sustain it and give it efficacy. 
Have we yet to learn that “‘ Christ [the blessed truth 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 829 


which comes to men through his mediation] is the wis- 
dom of God, and the power of God 2? and that “ the 
foolishness of God is wiser than men ; and the weak- 
ness of God is stronger than men?” If “ the wisdom 
of men’? is necessary to supply some deficiency in 
Divine revelation, how does it appear “that no flesh 
[no man or class of men] should glory in his pre- 
sence ?”? We are divinely taught, “that our faith 
should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the 
power of God.” So Jet it stand, and prevail ; and let 
all the glory redound to Him who is the exhaustless 
fountain of truth and love ! 

But the Monotheistic form of the common theory 
presents us with three real and eternal distinctions in the 
nature of God, corresponding to what he has revealed 
of himself in the work of redemption, and supposed 
to be certain properties or attributes not revealed in 
his holy word, yet inferentially set forth ag indicating 
the mode of the Divine existence ; the Godhead, how- 
ever, possessing only one set of Divine attributes, com- 
mon to the Three. The Tritheistic form presents us 
with three Persons in the nature of God, each having 
his own distinct Divine attributes—three distinct and 
competent Divine agents united in one substratum, and 
forming infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind. 
A certain writer has been Supposed by some to have 
advanced a little, and dut a little, upon this represen- 
tation of the subject; as in the following language : 
“ The infinite Father can find no companion among the. 
children of men. . . . .». He must have dwelt in solj- 


330 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


tary grandeur, but for this holy and rapturous com- 
munion with his august brethren of the Trinity. What 
desolation would pervade the courts of heaven, reach- 
ing even to the sanctuary of Him ‘ who sitteth upon 
the throne,’ could a ruthless arm of flesh pluck from 
his right hand and his left the beloved fellows of 
his glorious reign !”’* Again: “ The Holy Ghost 1s 
recounting the sufferings and death of his fellow 
God.? ¢ 

_ Now, in view of the foregoing discussion, we would 
ask: Which of the two—a Biblical Trinity, or the 
common theory of the Trinity in either of its forms—s 
plainly revealed in the word of God ? Which is ad- 
dressed to common sense; and which, to sectarian 
bigotry? Which is the production of Divine knowl- 
edge and wisdom ; arid which, in its peculiarity—tfor 
‘that which is common to the two has nothing to do 
with the question—is the offspring of human ignorance 
and folly? What, then, is the difference between the 
two, but this: The former came down from heaven ; 
the latter came forth from the schools ? the one is 
light : the other, darkness ? 

- The doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in the Scrip- 
tures, is intelligible, consistent, and free from scholas- 
tic mysticism; but it has been ‘‘ spoiled [corrupted] 
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition 
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after 
Christ. For, in him dwelleth atx the fullness of the 


* The Sufferings of Christ. By a Layman. 2d ed., p. 19. 
+ Id. p. 305. 


A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 831 - 


Godhead podily.”” If any “ cannot see it so,” it may 
be well they should be reminded, that it is easier to 
present truth clearly before the mind, than it is to fur- 
nish eyes to see it; especially, when the eye of common 
sense, with the light of revelation, is amply sufficient. 
It is enough for us, then, that we receive the doctrine 
simply as the Scriptures make it known, speak on the 
subject in much the same way in which the Bible 
speaks, and there leave vt,—faithfully doing the will of 
God,—till he shall see fit, in some period or other of 
our existence, to make known other truths concerning 
himself, which are now hidden from our view. 

But we do not expect that any great and sudden 
change, in the views generally prevalent on the subject 
of the Trinity, will be produced by the discussion in 
which we have been engaged ; for no single mind, though 
it were gifted with natural powers equal to any ever be- 
stowed on man, could be expected to bring about such a 
change. In any case of this kind, it must take time for 
intelligent conviction to be wrought in the public mind, 
and for that mind, under its present embarrassments, to 
work itself free from scholastic errors long and fondly 
cherished as a part of Divine truth, associated with 
the pious feelings, incorporated with all the habits of 
thinking and speaking on the subject, and entering 
minutely into the interpretation of so large a portion 

of the word of God. The author of Saturday Even- 
ing has somewhere given another reason, particularly 
applicable to this subject, in the general and truthful 
statement which follows : ‘ We may, at any time, find 


332 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 


ten men who have discernment and ingenuousness 
enough to discover and acknowledge their personal 
faults ; sooner than one man, who has the greatness 
of mind to perceive and confess the faults of the 
‘SYSTEM under which he has been reared, and which 
he stands PLEDGED to support.’? Most of those who 
are taught, are very apt to think much as their teacher 
does ; especially, if he inculcates his ‘‘ system?’ with 
ability. 

Nor are we attempting, in our retirement, to erect 
a standard which may serve as the rallying point of a 
new party in Theology. We have only sought to pre- 
sent the simple truth as revealed in God’s holy word ; 
leaving it to every man, as his sacred birth-right, to 
think, judge, and act for himself. 

But of this we feel confident, that a Biblical Trinity 
is not ‘‘the Ghost of an old heresy which lived and 
died some fifteen hundred years ago.’? Whatever the 
name may be, by which it may be called, that does 
not change the nature of the thing. Though it should 
be rejected and despised by many, it may redéppear, 
till it shall fully bring to light the violence done to 
Revelation, under the pretext of vindicating its truth. 
That simple truth we would receive; claiming for 
ourselves and granting to others the right of private 
judgment and the common rights of conscience, and 
remembering our infinite obligations to Him who, “* for 
us men and for our salvation,’? has revealed himself 
in various ways, but especially as THE FATHER, THE 
Son, anp tHE Hoty” Guost. 


Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Libra 


AY 


201020 9544 _ 


DATE DUE 


HIGHSMITH #45115 


a 


Pk 
fa NA) 


hes 53 
tats 


Ae 
‘ 


43 ecelig}ieeat 
ithces hiresteraneteteen 
i i aan ae 


: 
ash 


Sf 
i 


eeeh 


‘n 


a 


ie 
pete 


